HANSABEN BHAGABHAI BUBADIYA Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE and rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.

(2.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dtd. 10/11/2020 passed by respondent no. 1 - District Development Officer at Annexure-A to the petition, whereby the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Sec. 30(1)(j) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1993.

(3.) The background of fact is that the petitioner is a resident of Village Dalpur, Taluka : Danta, District : Banaskantha, who came to be elected as a Member of the Taluka Panchayat, Danta on 26/2/218. The petitioner came to be elected under the banner of Indian National Congress in the Taluka Panchayat, Danta. By way of order dtd. 25/7/2016, the District Collector, Banaskantha had appointed various agencies for appointment on different posts by way of outsourcing and it was provided that the employees who would be appointed on the said posts by way of outsourcing would not be employees of the State Government. Similarly, so far as the Female Health Workers are concerned, the State Government vide order dtd. 22/7/2015 directed to appoint Female Health Workers on the basis of outsourcing and for that purpose, one Rajdeep Enterprise was selected as an agency vide order dtd. 10/8/2018, which would undertake the process of appointment for such Female Health Workers. It is further the case of the petitioner that Rajdeep Enterprise invited applications for appointment on contract basis for a period of 11 months and in response thereto, the petitioner applied for the post of Female Health Worker who came to be appointed by Rajdeep Enterprise vide Office Order dtd. 15/11/2019 at Kundaliya Primary Health Center, Mavsari, Taluka : Vav, District : Banaskantha. According to the petitioner, the appointment letter itself is indicating that the petitioner would not be considered as an employee of the State Government nor will claim in any benefits from the State Government as if she is an employee of the State authority and would not be construe as a public servant in any form. On account of some personal reasons, the petitioner submitted her resignation from the said post on 1/9/2020. The petitioner has further submitted that the she is belonging to the Congress Party and respondent no. 2 who is an elected Member of the opposite party ie. Bhartiya Janta Party, has submitted an application before the District Development Officer by asserting that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Sec. 13(1) (j) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act on the ground that the petitioner being Female Health Worker is a public servant, being an employee of local authority and in respect of it, a show cause notice came to be issued by respondent no. 1 on 8/9/2020 calling upon the petitioner as to why she should not be disqualified under Sec. 30(1) (j) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act as the petitioner is a Government Servant or servant of the Local Authority. The said show cause notice came to be replied by the petitioner on 21/9/2020 inter alia pointing out that she had already resigned from the post of Female Health Worker, she no longer is continuing in the employment and in any case, the appointment letter itself is indicating that she shall not be treated as an employee of the State authority and apart from that, it is also clarified that she cannot be termed as a public servant and as such, requested to drop the proceedings. However, according to the petitioner, respondent no. 1 by way of impugned order dtd. 10/11/2020 was pleased to held that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Sec. 30(1)(j) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and as such, is disabled to continue as elected Member of the Taluka Panchayat. Since this action/order is quite contrary to the well established principle and the issue according to the petitioner is squarely covered by the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the said order.