SANGEETARANI PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application prays for a direction to the Opposite Parties to appoint her as Secretary of Purusandha Grama Panchayat in the District of Bhadrak.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to a notification published in the Notice Board of the Panchayat Samiti, she submitted her application for appointment as Secretary of the said Grama Panchayat. She was called to the interview on 8/5/2001 and she stood in the 1st position in the merit list. Even though the petitioner stood first in the merit list, the Grama Panchayat in its resolution dated 7/7/2001 decided not to give appointment to the petitioner on the ground that she is a college going girl and cannot discharge the duties of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. Since the petitioner was not given appointment, she approached different authorities. The Opposite Party No. 2 in its letter dated 4/10/2001 directed for taking early steps for submission of the proposal for appointment of the petitioner, 14 out of 24 Ward Members also intimated the Opposite Party No. 5 that they have no objection if the petitioner is given appointment as Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and accordingly the Opposite Party No. 5 also requested to take necessary steps for issuance of appointment order in favour of the petitioner and in spite of all that the Grama Panchayat did not appoint her, as a result of which, she had to approach this Court in the present writ application.

(3.) There is no dispute that in the interview conducted for selection of a candidate for appointment as Secretary of the said Grama Panchayat, the petitioner stood first and she had also the requisite qualifications for such appointment. She has not been given appointment only because of the resolution passed by the Grama Panchayat on 7/7/2001. The aforesaid resolution of the Grama Panchayat has been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-B/2. From the said resolution, it appears that a decision was taken not to appoint the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner being a lady cannot discharge the duties of the Secretary. It further appears that on 25/4/2002, another resolution was passed by the Grama Panchayat which is annexed as Annexure-G/2 to the aforesaid counter affidavit wherein the said ground has been repeated. However, in Paragraph 6 & 7 of the resolution it is mentioned that during the period of the previous Sarpanch the petitioner did not attend the Grama Panchayat meeting, as a result of which, the Ward Members felt insulted and were opposing the appointment of the petitioner. In Paragraph 7 of the said resolution, a recommendation has been made for giving appointment to the petitioner in Badamahinsa Gotha Grama Panchayat. The ground on which the Grama Panchayat has passed the resolution not to appoint the petitioner appears to be unjustified. The petitioner having been selected for appointment, her case cannot be turned down solely on the ground that she is a lady and cannot discharge the duties of the Secretary. If this ground was available to the Grama Panchayat, they could have specified in the notice that the lady candidates are not eligible to apply for appointment to the post of Secretary. The District Panchayat Officer whose approval is said to be necessary for the purpose of selection has also issued a letter to the Grama Panchayat dated 4/10/2001 to give appointment to the petitioner. We are therefore, of the view that the resolution of the Grama Panchayat deciding not to give appointment to the petitioner is illegal and should not be acted upon.