ANANDARAM SUNANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 19.12.2011 (Annexure - 8) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.32010 of 2011, wherein the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to prefer appeal against the order dated 16.07.2011 passed by respondent No.3 -District Panchayat Officer. Further, prayer of the appellant is to declare the order dated 16.07.2011 (Annexure -6) passed by respondent No.3 -District Panchayat Officer, Kalahandi, wherein he rejected the representation of the appellant dated 26.05.2011 to appoint him as Grama Panchayat Secretary in Manjari Grama Panchayat on the ground that the appointment for the post of Grama Panchayat Secretary is banned by the Government of Odisha vide letter No.19428/PR, dated 01.10.2002 of Government in P.R. Department, Odisha as illegal.

(2.) APPELLANT s case in a nutshell is that he was appointed as Grama Panchayat Secretary in Manjari Grama Panchayat under Golamunda Block in the district of Kalahandi vide resolution dated 07.02.1992 of the Grama Panchayat which was subsequently approved by the respondent No.3 - District Panchayat Officer on 23.03.1992 as required under Rule 213 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, 1968 (for short, Rules, 1968 ). Pursuant to such appointment, the appellant was continuing in service peacefully, sincerely, honestly and with utmost satisfaction of the authority. During the service period, there was no allegation either by the Grama Panchayat or by any authorities regarding his misconduct, wilful violation of any direction of the Grama Panchayat or any negligence in his duty. While the appellant was continuing as such, due to his sincerity on 01.07.1997, he was promoted to the higher post and also accordingly gradation list was prepared under Annexure -2 series by the State Government, wherein the name of the appellant was available at Sl.No.28. While the matter stood thus, on 12.05.2000, the District Panchayat Officer wrote a letter to the Grama Panchayat for engagement of one Meghanada Aghria, who was earlier disengaged from service due to his involvement in a criminal case and the Grama Panchayat was directed to disengage the appellant. Pursuant to the direction made by the District Panchayat Officer under Annexurer -3, the Grama Panchayat immediately made a resolution on 24.05.2000 stating therein that in view of the direction made by the District Panchayat Officer, the appellant has been disengaged from service, which was communicated to the appellant on 26.06.2000. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached several authorities and he was assured that after retirement of Meghanada Aghria, the appellant would get service and accordingly, the appellant waited. In the meantime, Meghanada Aghria has retired from service and the said post is lying vacant. The appellant has approached this Court twice. This Court vide order dated 05.05.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.9744 of 2011 disposed of the writ petition directing the District Panchayat Officer, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna to dispose of the representation of the appellant strictly in accordance with law, if the same has not been disposed of within 21 days of receipt of that order. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the District Panchayat Officer, Kalahandi vide order dated 16.07.2011 (Annexure -6) rejected the representation of the appellant on the ground that the appointment to the post of Grama Panchayat Secretary is banned by the Government of Orissa. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.32010 of 2011 which was disposed of on 19.12.2011 at the stage of admission giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal before the Sub -Collector, Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi, who was to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. Aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in directing the appellant to approach the Appellate Authority as there is no need for him to approach the Appellate Authority at this stage and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and the order of termination is contrary to the statutory and fundamental rights of the appellant, this Writ Appeal is filed urging various legal grounds.

(3.) MR . S.K. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that order passed by the District Panchayat Officer under Annexure -6 as well as order under Annexure -8 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court are unjust and against the settled principles of law. Hence, the same are liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the appellant was appointed against a regular vacancy following due procedure of law and in accordance with the provisions made under the Grama Panchayat Act. The order disengaging the appellant without following the mandatory provisions of the Grama Panchayat Rules contained in Rule 216(a) is bad in law. No opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant before removing him from service which is in violation of the Grama Panchayat Rules. When statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following other course is not permissible. The appointment of the appellant was approved by the District Panchayat Officer and his promotion was considered and also his name was available in the gradation list for the post of Village Level Workers (VLWs). His disengagement at a belated stage is unwarranted. Working under the Grama Panchayat as a Secretary is not a civil post. Therefore, removal of the appellant at the behest of the officer of the Government is illegal. Representation of the appellant has been rejected under Annexure -6 on the ground that appointment to the post of Grama Panchayat Secretary is banned by the Government. This Court vide order dated 06.04.2009 passed in W.P.(C) No.6579 of 2003 held that such government notification is illegal and the ban to that effect is also not legal and sustainable in law. Therefore, order passed under Annexure -6 rejecting the representation of the appellant is also not sustainable in law. Concluding his argument, Mr. Dalai, prays to allow the writ appeal.