AB JABBAR RATHER Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the Lambardar filed the nomination paper for being chosen as a member of the Panchayat Committee, Nadihal Halqa, Bandipora. Ward No. 7. His nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that he was dis -qualified for being elected as a member under section 8 -b of the Jammu and Kashmir Village Panchayat Act of 1958, (hereinafter called as the Act), as he was in the employment of the Government. Aggrieved by this order of the Returning officer the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 21 of the Village Panchayat Rules of 1974, before the Appellate Authority Bandipora, who dismissed the appeal observing that the petitioner was not duly qualified to be chosen as a member for the village Panchayat Committee, as he being a headman, was in the employment of the Government. The present writ petition is directed against the aforesaid orders of the Returning Officer as also of the appellate authority.

(2.) THE short point that falls for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioner, who is admittedly a headman of the village is or is not eligible to be chosen as a member for the Panchayat Committee under the Act and whether section 8 -b of the said Act operates as a bar to his being chosen as such.

(3.) SHRI K. N. Raina appearing for the petitioner has submitted that by no stretch of the language employed in Section 8 -b of the Act, a Lambardar can be said to be a Government servant. The expression headman does not connote the idea of master and servant. In the case of a Lambardar there is no such concept as the Lambardar is elected and not appointed. In order to be a Government employee the relationship of master and servant must exist between the parties. Such relationship does not exist between the Government and a village headman. Therefore it cannot be said that the Lambardar is in the employment of the Government. Reliance is placed on the observations made in A. I. R. 1958 Allahabad, 660, which are to the effect that a Mukhia (village headman) is not a Government servant. The decision was rendered in the light of the language employed in U. P. Panchayat Act. The judgment has proceeded on the assumption that a Government Servant is not denned in the General Clauses Act and, there fore, the office of a Mukhia, though recognized by law; can only be created by an order passed either by the District Magistrate or a Sub Divisional Magistrate. The same is not a statutory post in the sense that the Mukhia is to be appointed for every village. He does not receive any remuneration for the services rendered by him. His duties are also not well defined. He does not hold whole -time job and no disciplinary proceedings can be taken against him. Therefore, in the opinion of the learned Judge, who decided the ease, Mukhia was not a Government servant as contemplated by Section 5 -A of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act.