Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Jamna Bai Mehra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 23 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(4)MPHT471
Author: R.V. Raveendran
Bench: R.V. Raveendran
ORDER K.K. Lahoti, J.
1. Aggrieved by order of the learned Single Judge dated 23-3-2004 in Writ Petition No. 2966/2001, this appeal has been directed. The appellant was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakarta on 12-2-2001 (Annexure A-3 along with appeal) by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Gotegaon. The order of the Project Officer (Annexure A-3) was challenged by respondent No. 4 before the learned Single Judge on the ground that her candidature was not considered and she being widow, she ought to have been given preference as provided under Clause 4 of the Scheme contained in Annexure P-4 (of petition) dated 11-8-2000.
2. The appellant and other respondents contested the case before the learned Single Judge on the ground, that as the closed relations of respondent No. 4 were the members of Panchayat, her candidature was rightly not considered.
3. The learned Single Judge after appreciating the contentions of the parties allowed the writ petition holding that the reference to mother-in-law and uncle of fourth respondent was absolutely irrelevant in the matter and a widow has to be given preference. He therefore, directed the Collector, Narsinghpur to consider the case of the fourth respondent on the anvil of Annexure P-4 and pass a fresh order.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that uncle-in-law and co-sister of mother-in-law of fourth respondent are the members of the Gram Panchayat and therefore she was not entitled for consideration as Anganwadi Karyakarta and the learned Single Judge has wrongly directed to consider the case of respondent No. 4.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 contended that respondent No. 4 is a widow and is entitled for preferential consideration. So far as the contention based on relatives being members of Panchayat, fourth respondent countered that having regard to the definition of the term 'relative' in M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 there is no bar if the uncle-in-law or co-sister of mother-in-law is a member of Panchayat as they are not 'relatives' and that therefore she is entitled for consideration.
6. Considering the contentions of the parties, it may be seen that in the scheme of appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta, there is a provision that no relative of a Panchayat Officer or Government Employee shall be appointed as Anganwadi Karyakarta/Assistant. But the scheme does not define the term 'relative'. From the perusal of the entire scheme, it appears that aforesaid appointment is under Gram Panchayat and the proposals are to be made by the Gram Panchayat for the appointment and this scheme specifically provides that in case of recommendation of any relative by Panchayat Officer and if that appointment is made then the Panchayat Officer himself shall become disqualified from the Panchayat. In these circumstances, when the Scheme does not define 'relative' it is permissible to borrow the definition of the term occurring in the relevant enactment relating to Panchayats, if it is not repugnant to the context. The term 'relative' is defined in more than one place in Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam and that definition which is contextually applicable, can be used in reference to the Scheme for the appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta/Assistant.
6.1. Section 40 (1) of the said Act deals with removal of any office bearer of Panchayat for misconduct. Once of the misconducts is favouring relatives. The relevant portion of the Explanation to Section 40 (1) is extracted below:--
Explanation :-- For the purpose of this sub-section, 'misconduct' shall include--
(c) "the use of position or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any relative in the Panchayat or any action for extending any pecuniary benefits to any relative, such as giving out any type of lease, getting any work done through them in the Panchayat by an office bearer of Panchayat.
Explanation :-- For the purpose of this clause the expression 'relative' shall mean father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law and daughter-in-law."
6.2. The same definition of the term 'relative' is also found in Section 69 (1) of the Act which reads as under:--
"69. Appointment of Secretary and Chief Executive Officer.--
(1) The State Government or the prescribed authority may appoint a Secretary for a Gram Panchayat or group of two or more Gram Panchayats:
Provided that the person holding the charge of a Secretary of Gram Panchayat immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue to function as such till a Secretary is appointed in accordance with this section :
Provided further that a person shall not hold charge of a Secretary of Gram Panchayat, if such a person happens to be relative of any office bearer of the concerned Gram Panchayat.
Explanation:-- For the purpose of this sub-section the expression 'relative' shall mean father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law."
6.3. The term 'relative' necessarily should have a definite meaning and can not refer to distant relatives. We may take note of the fact that in villages, each person belonging to a particular caste or community will in a distant manner be able to trace a relationship to virtually every other member of that community/caste. If the term 'relative' is to be used in the broadest manner without any boundaries or limitations, it will lead to absurd results and make the provisions of the relevant Acts and scheme unworkable. We are therefore of the view that the definition of the term 'relative' in the cognate provisions of the statute should be borrowed for understanding the limitations of the word 'relative'. We therefore, hold that the terms 'relative' in the scheme for appointments of Anganwadi Karyakartas/Assistants, in the absence of a specific definition, refers only to the father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law and daughter-in-law but it does not include uncle-in-law and co-sister of mother-in-law. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the case of fourth respondent to be reconsidered by the Collector.
7. The observation of the learned Single Judge that 'reference to mother-in-law is absolutely irrelevant for such consideration' should not so read out of context. He was not saying that 'mother-in-law' is not a 'relative'. What he meant was that 'Chachi Saas' (co-sister of mother-in-law) can not be equated to mother-in-law. There is no bar for consideration of fourth respondent's candidature for Anganwadi Karyakarta. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly remitted the matter to the Collector for consideration of the candidature of respondent No. 4 for Anganwadi Karyakarta. In the order, we do not find any error to interfere in the L.P.A. This appeal has no merit and accordingly it is dismissed.
8. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that after the order of the learned Single Judge, the Project Officer has removed the appellant from the post and has appointed respondent No. 4 as Anganwadi Karyakarta. If appellant is aggrieved, the appellant is free to assail the aforesaid order in accordance with law.