MERCY JOHN Vs. THANKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question for consideration was whether a teacher of an aided school managed by the Panchayat was disqualified under S.30(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act from contesting the election for being chosen to fill a seat in the Panchayat.

(2.) The short facts are as follows: The 1st respondent Thankam was working as a teacher of Alagappanagar Panchayat High School and she filed the nomination for contesting the election to the Thrissur District Panchayat held on 25.9.2000 from Kodakara Constituency and she was declared elected. The appellant and the 2nd respondent were also candidates who contested for the election. The appellant raised a contention that the 1st respondent, being a teacher of the school managed by the Panchayat, was disqualified from contesting the election in view of S.30(1) of the Panchayat Raj Act. It was further contended that the 1st respondent was the Implementation Officer of the Education Department of Peoples Planning Scheme of Alagappanagar Panchayat and as such she was disqualified under S.34(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act also. The appellant raised the above objections at the time of scrutiny of nominations. But the above objections were rejected by the Returning Officer. Accordingly the appellant filed O.P. (Election) No. 199/2000 before the District Court, Thrissur, for setting aside the election alleging that the 1st respondent was disqualified under S.30(1) and 34(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act (the Act, for short). The 1st respondent in the counter admitted that she was a teacher of Alagappanagar Panchayat High School. She contended that during 2000-01 no project of the Peoples Planning Scheme had been entrusted with her and she had no liability to the Panchayat. The District Judge, after considering the evidence, held that the 1st respondent had not incurred the disqualification either under S.30(1) or under S.34(1)(g) of the Act and accordingly the election petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

(3.) The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the 1st respondent who was working as a teacher in the Alagappanagar Panchayat High School managed by the Panchayat was disqualified to contest the election in view of S.30(1) of the Act. S.30(1) reads: