Full Judgment
PRAYER
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to regularize the petitioner in the post of Water Assistant in the fourth respondent Panchayat and continue to pay the salary regularly to the petitioner pursuant to the appointment order dated 01.03.2006.
ORDER
1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction directing the fourth respondent to regularize the petitioner in the post of Water Assistant in the fourth respondent Panchayat and continue to pay the salary regularly to the petitioner pursuant to the appointment order dated 01.03.2006.
2. The case of the petitioner is that through G.O.Ms.No.226 Rural Development (C1) dated 15.10.1996, Velamparai Drinking Water Scheme was started and the fourth respondent Panchayat invited the local people to donate lands for the establishment of the water storage tank by offering an employment opportunity at the office of the fourth respondent Panchayat. Accordingly, the petitioner had donated his lands to the fourth respondent for constructing the water storage tank and thereafter applied before the fourth respondent for a job. A Resolution No.179 of 2006 dated 01.03.2006 came to be passed by the fourth respondent Panchayat and consequent upon such resolution the petitioner was appointed as Water Assistant on 01.03.2006. From the date of such appointment, the petitioner in continuing in service all these years. The petitioner is bein paid a salary of Rs.97/- per day on daily wage basis. Even though the petitioner is working for nearly six years, his service is not yet regularized.
3. Notice of motion was ordered on 27.02.2007. On notice the respondents entered appearance and the third respondent filed a counter affidavit.
4. It is stated by the third respondent that the Village Panchayat President namely, the fourth respondent has no power to appoint the petitioner and therefore such appointment is purely illegal and consequently the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit out of such illegal appointment. It is also stated by the third respondent that there was a ban on appointment in the village Panchayat through G.O.Ms.No.93/RD/E5 dated 26.03.1997. Therefore, according to the third respondent that the petitioner's appointment made during the ban period that too by a person not competent to appoint, cannot be regularized.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
6. In this case, the petitioner had specifically stated that he had donated his lands to the fourth respondent Panchayat for constructing a water storage tank based on an offer made by the fourth respondent Panchayat that he will be provided with an employment at the fourth respondent Panchayat. Accordingly, the fourth respondent Panchayat passed a resolution on 01.03.2006 and appointed the petitioner as Water Assistant. Those facts are not denied or disputed by the respondents more specifically by the third respondent in the counter affidavit. On the other hand, the third respondent has only stated that by donating the land to the village Panchayat, the petitioner can not have any right to claim any post in village Panchayat in violation of existing Government Orders.
7. I find no force in the contentions raised by the third respondent. In this case the fourth respondent has invited persons to part with their land by way of donating the same to the Panchayat for constructing a water tank with a specific offer to provide an employment and based on such offer only the petitioner also donated his land and got an employment. While that being the factual position, now the authorities cannot turn around and say that the petitioner is not entitled any right over the post merely because he donated his land to the Panchayat. Therefore, the respondents are estopped from taking any such stand against the petitioner.
8. Insofar as the other contentions with regard to the power of the President to appoint the petitioner is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the President has been vested with the power to exercise the power of Executive Officer as per G.O.Ms.No.226 dated 15.10.1996. As I have already observed that the said appointment was not a regular appointment made by the Panchayat President and it was an appointment made under special circumstances based on an offer made by the Panchayat itself, I find no merits in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the third respondent that the Panchayat President has got no power to appoint anybody. If making of such offer and providing of such an employment are bad in the opinion of the respondents 1 to 3, then they should find fault with the fourth respondent only and not against the petitioner. Insofar as the other contention namely there was a ban imposed in G.O.Ms.No.93/RD/E5 dated 26.03.1997, is concerned though this Court has directed the learned Special Government Pleader to produce a copy of the said G.O, till this date the same was not produced. However, it is also not known as to whether the said ban has been subsequently lifted or not.
9. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances and also by taking note of the fact that the petitioner had already donated his land for construction of water storage tank and got employment in pursuant to the resolution passed by the village Panchayat, I only direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization to the post of Water Assistant and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.