RIAZ UDDIN Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case in a nutshell is "that the petitioner was elected as the Secretary to West Pathorkata Village Employment Council, West Garo Hills District, by an over whelming majority under section 7A(5) of Meghalaya Employment Guarantee Scheme (MREGS) 2006, and in consideration of such election the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as the Secretary of Village Employment Council of the said village vide Order No. SEL.APPT.125/NREGS/ORDER/2012 -13/533; dated Selsella the 9th Sept., 2013 issued by the BDO & Programme Officer, MGNREGS, Selsella C & RD Block, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya and is discharging his duties for the betterment of the villagers without any complaint from any corner of the village or by the Job Card Holders of the said village. The vested interest person in collusion with the respondents particularly the respondent No. 8 (Ex -Block Development Officer & Programme Officer, MGNREGS, Selsella C & RD Block, West Garo Hills District Meghalaya) and respondent No. 4 has conspired to remove the petitioner from the post of Secretary village under Selsella C & RD Block, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya and plant their representative in place of the petitioner, since the petitioner has failed to complied with the illegal demands of the respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 8. The respondent No. 4, without any authority or any sanction conducted a meeting of the villagers wherein certain resolutions were passed in the so called meeting at the back of the petitioner. Acting upon the said minutes of the meeting, the petitioner was removed without any show cause and at the back of the petitioner, thereby violating the principal of natural justice. The petitioner was never intimated about the said meeting nor was any date fixed by any of the respondents for conducting the said meeting or election, whereby the petitioner and other job card holders were deprived from contesting the so called election. The respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were appointed by the respondent authorities without following the Scheme of National Rural Employments Guarantee Act, 2005."

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , an enquiry was conducted by the SDO Dadenggre, West Garo Hills, Tura and found him to be innocent. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the said enquiry report in Court and the Court Master is directed to put the said report on record. The petitioner thereafter approached the BDO concerned for his reinstatement to the post but he refused to reinstate the petitioner on the plea that the instant writ petition is pending before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed for necessary direction.