Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition, Sets Aside Disqualification of Sarpanch. Teacher in Aided School Not a Government Servant Under Section 14(i) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 12
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Shivaji Manohar Kale, was elected as a member and later as Sarpanch of Asegaon Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 4 filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher in a school run by Mukteshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, which receives aid from Zilla Parishad, and that he had not obtained prior permission from the management. The Additional Collector, by order dated 30/12/2010, held the petitioner disqualified under Section 14(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 and Rule 42(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. The petitioner's appeal to the Additional Commissioner was dismissed on 4/5/2011. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner argued that Rule 42(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules had been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in Bombay University and College Teachers' Union v. State of Maharashtra, 1990 (2) Bom.C.R. 324. Further, he contended that he had obtained due permission from the management, and that he was neither a servant of the Government nor of a local authority, relying on Rangnath Sitaram Yerawar v. V.N. Muley, 1992 (1) Mh.L.J. 853 and Bhagwan Mirkad v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No. 6481 of 2007). The Court analyzed that Section 14(i) of the Act disqualifies a person who is a servant of the Government or a local authority. The school where the petitioner worked is run by a trust and receives aid, but the school itself is not a local authority. The Zilla Parishad, though a local authority, is not the employer of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not a servant of the Government or a local authority. The Court also noted that Rule 42(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules has been struck down and cannot be invoked. The Bombay Village Panchayat Act is a complete code, and other Acts cannot be imported for disqualification. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner, and held that the petitioner is not disqualified.

Headnote

A) Bombay Village Panchayat Act - Disqualification - Section 14(i) - Teacher in Aided School - The petitioner, an assistant teacher in a school run by a trust and receiving aid from Zilla Parishad, was disqualified as Sarpanch under Section 14(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The Court held that a teacher in an aided school is not a servant of the Government or a local authority, as the school is not a local authority and the teacher is not in government service. The disqualification under Section 14(i) does not apply. (Paras 1-6)

B) M.E.P.S. Rules - Rule 42(2) - Ultra Vires - The authorities relied on Rule 42(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 to disqualify the petitioner. The Court noted that this Rule has been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in Bombay University and College Teachers' Union v. State of Maharashtra, 1990 (2) Bom.C.R. 324. Hence, the Rule cannot be invoked. (Para 4)

C) Bombay Village Panchayat Act - Complete Code - Import of Other Acts - The Court held that the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 is a complete code in itself regarding disqualifications. When the Act does not prescribe a ground of disqualification, other Acts cannot be imported or taken aid of to disqualify a person. The petitioner could not be disqualified merely because he was an assistant teacher. (Para 4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a teacher working in a school run by a trust and receiving grant-in-aid from Zilla Parishad is a 'servant of the Government' or 'servant of a local authority' within the meaning of Section 14(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, and whether Rule 42(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules can be invoked for disqualification.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition allowed. The impugned orders dated 30/12/2010 passed by the Additional Collector and dated 4/5/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner are quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioner is not disqualified.

Law Points

  • Disqualification under Section 14(i) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act
  • 1958 applies only to government servants or servants of local authority
  • not to teachers in aided schools
  • Rule 42(2) of M.E.P.S. Rules struck down as ultra vires
  • Bombay Village Panchayat Act is a complete code and other Acts cannot be imported for disqualification
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 17

Writ Petition No. 4056 of 2011

2011-07-13

S.V. Gangapurwala, J.

Mr. S.S. Thombre for Petitioner, Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar for State, Mr. R.V. Gore for Respondent No. 4

Shivaji S/o Manohar Kale

The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad; The Additional Collector, Aurangabad; The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Gangapur; Ramdas S/o Kisan Kamble

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging orders of disqualification of Sarpanch under Section 14(i) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of orders dated 30/12/2010 and 4/5/2011 disqualifying him as Sarpanch.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was disqualified as Sarpanch on the ground that he was an Assistant Teacher in an aided school without prior permission, invoking Section 14(i) of the Act and Rule 42(2) of M.E.P.S. Rules.

Previous Decisions

Additional Collector disqualified petitioner on 30/12/2010; Additional Commissioner dismissed appeal on 4/5/2011.

Issues

Whether a teacher in an aided school is a 'servant of the Government' or 'servant of a local authority' under Section 14(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958? Whether Rule 42(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules can be invoked for disqualification when it has been struck down by a Division Bench? Whether the Bombay Village Panchayat Act is a complete code, precluding import of other Acts for disqualification?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that Rule 42(2) of M.E.P.S. Rules has been struck down by Division Bench in Bombay University and College Teachers' Union case. Petitioner argued that he had obtained due permission from management. Petitioner argued that he is not a servant of Government or local authority, relying on Rangnath Yerawar and Bhagwan Mirkad cases. Petitioner argued that the Act is a complete code and other Acts cannot be imported.

Ratio Decidendi

A teacher in a school run by a trust and receiving aid from Zilla Parishad is not a servant of the Government or a local authority under Section 14(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. Rule 42(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, having been struck down, cannot be invoked. The Act is a complete code and other Acts cannot be imported for disqualification.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is neither servant of the Govt. nor that of the local authority. The provisions of the other Acts can not be imported and can not be taken aid of while interpreting the provisions of the said Act, more particularly, when it is complete Code in itself.

Procedural History

Respondent No. 4 filed complaint; Additional Collector disqualified petitioner on 30/12/2010; petitioner appealed to Additional Commissioner who dismissed appeal on 4/5/2011; petitioner filed writ petition in High Court on 13/07/2011.

Acts & Sections

  • Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958: Section 14(i)
  • Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Rule 42(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows MCGM's Writ Petition Against Gratuity Order Due to Procedural Irregularities. Controlling Authority's Ex Parte Order Set Aside as Corporation Was Not Given Proper Opportunity to Be Heard.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Application for Appointment of Sole Arbitrator in Partnership Dispute — Arbitration Clause Requires Multiple Arbitrators. The court held that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitra...