Orissa High Court

(Through Hybrid Mode) vs State Of Odisha And Others on 27 February, 2023

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                       W.P.(C) No.3764 of 2020
                       (Through Hybrid mode)
Sukumari Shaw and another                      ....                     Petitioners

                                    -versus-

State of Odisha and others                     ....              Opposite Parties


Advocates appeared in this case :

For Petitioner :                      Mr. Gopinath Sethi. Advocate

For Opposite Parties :                Mr. P. K. Rout, AGA

                                      Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate
                                                        for O.P.6



           CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and Judgment 27.02.2023

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Mr. Sethi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners.

They say they are Gram Sathis in respect of village Ohad. They have

challenged order dated 30th November, 2019, appointing persons

placed at top of the panel (disclosed at page 22) as mates in respect of

the village. He submits, his clients had earlier moved this Court and

// 2 //

successfully challenged similar order made. Again the same situation

has been perpetrated by the authority.

2. He draws attention to circular dated 5th April, 2010 clarifying

that every revenue village will have a panel of 7 persons (Gram

Sanjoyaks) including 5 numbers of Gram Sanjoyaks and 2 numbers

Gaon Sathis, in which Gaon Sathis will be placed at the top of the

panel. Referring to the panel at page 22 he points out that in respect of

every other village, Gaon Sathis have been placed at the top except

his clients' village Ohad. This was to deprive his clients from being

appointed as mates. He seeks interference.

3. Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate

appears on behalf of State and submits with reference to impugned

order, it was duly made. The guidelines were scrupulously followed.

There should not be interference. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate

appears on behalf of opposite party no.6. He submits, his client's

name appears on top of the panel in respect of village Ohad in the list

at page 22. This placement was duly made since, by subsequent

circular dated 5th October, 2013 all earlier circulars pertaining to, inter

alia, Gaon Sathis had been superseded. He too submits, there should

not be interference.

// 3 //

4. For purpose of implementing the scheme circulars appear to

have been issued from time to time. The first relevant circular is dated

5th April, 2010. It is in clarification of earlier circulars dated 29th July,

2009 and 18th August, 2009. Clarification no.1 is reproduced below.

"1. Every revenue village will have a panel of 7 persons (Gram Sanjoyaks) including 5 numbers of Gram Sanjoyaks and 2 numbers of Gaon Sathis in which Gaon Sathis will be placed in the top of the panel."

(emphasis supplied)

5. Another circular was issued on 5th October, 2013. This was

said to be in supersession of all communication issued earlier by the

department pertaining to, Gaon Sathi/Gram Sanjoyaks under

MGNREGS. Of the number of procedures given in the circular,

procedure nos.1 to 4 are set out below.

"1. Every revenue village will have only two nos. of mates.

2. Two nos. of persons placed in the top of the panel of the "Gram Sanjojaks" will function as mate in each revenue village. Balance 5 nos. of persons placed in the panel of the Gram Sanjoyaks stand disengaged and the panel dissolved with immediate effect.

3. Henceforth, there will be no nomenclature of "Gaon Sathi" / Gram Sanjojaks" for the mate. They will be named as "mate" only.

// 4 //

4. In the revenue villages where there is no panel of "Gram Sanjojaks", two nos. of "mates" will be selected through Palli Sabha. Preference should be given to women/differently-abled persons."

(emphasis supplied)

6. From the materials on record adjudication is possible as to

preparation of the panel at page 22. It is true that in respect of every

other village reflected in the panel, the Gram Sathis have been placed

at the top. Only in respect of village Ohad, the Gram Sathis have been

place at serial nos.6 and 7 of the panel. Placement of Gram Sathis at

the top of the panel for every other village suggests that procedure

followed was in terms of clarification by circular dated 5th April,

2010. As a consequence, it is not understood as to how Gram Sathis

were placed at the bottom of the panel in respect of village Ohad. Mr.

Mohapatra defended the panel by saying it was drawn up pursuant to

subsequent circular dated 5th October, 2013, which was in

supersession of the earlier clarification circular dated 5th April, 2010.

It would be too much of a coincidence that in following the

superseding circular, the effect would be that only in village Ohad

Gram Sathis were placed at the bottom of the list while for other

village they were on top, indicating compliance with the circular.

// 5 //

7. There is yet another circular dated 13th December, 2013, text

of it reproduced below.

"In continuation to this Department letter no.24897 dated 05.10.2013 on the subject cited above I am directed to clarify that 2 nos. of "Gaon Sathis" selected in pursuance of this Department letter No.4324 dated. 30-01-2008 and placed in the top of the panel of the "Gram Sanjoyaks" in pursuance of this Department letter no. 2439 dated 29-07-2009, 26555 dated 18-08- 2009 and 10029 dated 05-04-2010 and presently working satisfactorily as such may be engaged to function as "mate" in every revenue village under MGNREGS. All other conditions mentioned in this Department letter no.24897 dated 05-10-2013 still remain unchanged.

This is for your information and necessary action."

(emphasis supplied)

Above circular tends to nullify the superseding effect sought to be

given by circular dated 5th October, 2013. If that were not so, all

appointments in respect of the other villages, reflected in the panel at

page 22, then cannot also be sustained. In impugned order the

Collector has said that in respect of village Ohad a panel list of seven

numbers of Gram Sanjajokas was prepared in the Palli Sabha dated

15th September, 2009 as per Government Guidelines, in which 2 nos.

// 6 //

of persons placed at the top of the panel of the Grama Sanjajoka will

function as mate in each revenue village. This finding, in view of

aforesaid, requires interference.

8. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The Collector is

directed to revisit the matter and in event still finds petitioners, as

Grama Sathis, cannot be appointed as mates being at serial nos.6 and

7, must explain in the order to be passed as to how in respect of the

other villages in the panel at page 22, Gaon Sathis were placed at the

top. There must be reasons given to show that some order of merit

was made applicable to all the villages reflected at page 22 and it is a

coincidence that only in respect of village Ohad, the Gaon Sathis were

at the bottom of the list. Decision on the matter is to be made and

informed to petitioners within four weeks of communication.