SWAROOP YADAV Vs. RAKESH KUMAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak, is aggrieved by the order of Appellate Authority i.e. the Collector dated 07.08.2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 against his appointed was allowed and petitioner's services were directed to be terminated.

(2.) Admittedly, the learned Collector has interfered with the petitioner's appointment on twin grounds - (i) the selection was conducted for Gram Panchayat Sirmangni and essential condition as per Clause 4A of the Scheme for appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak was that the candidate must be a local resident of the Panchayat for which selection has been conducted. The petitioner's name was admittedly found to be in the voter list of two Gram Panchayats, namely, Sirmangni and Bandam. The petitioner submitted his candidature for the post in question for both the Gram Panchayats. After being appointed in Sirmangri, he intended to delete his name from the voter list of Bandam. Thus, the learned Collector found it to be in utter violation of Clause 4-A. The second reason for passing the impugned order is that at the time of submission of candidature, the petitioner was facing criminal case for offences under Sections 147, 294, 452, 323 and 427 Indian Penal Code and as per police report, the said criminal case was pending whereas petitioner informed the learned Collector that parties in the said criminal case have compromised the matter and criminal case came to an end. Thus, Collector invoked Clauses 11 and 15 of the relevant Scheme and opined that the petitioner was not fit to be appointed.

(3.) Shri Kishore Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the twin reasons aforesaid and contended that the petitioner did fulfill the requirements of Clause 4-A and his name was admittedly recorded in the voter list of Sirmangni. Thus, the essential condition of showing local resident was satisfied. Merely because petitioner's name is mentioned in the voter list of yet another Gram Panchayat, it will not have any adverse impact. Secondly, the petitioner stood exonerated from Criminal Case No.1805/2011 by judgment dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure-P/7) and thus there was no justification in cancelling the petitioner's appointment. He relied on 2011 (4) SCC 644 (Commr. Of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar) to support his aforesaid condition.