Mona Keshri vs Election Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 5755 Ori

Orissa High Court

Mona Keshri vs Election Officer on 22 August, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                      W.P.(C). No. 30558 of 2024

      (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
      of India)

      Mona Keshri              ......                 Petitioner

                                  -Versus-

      Election Officer, Panposh
      Regulated Market Committee
      -cum-Sub-Collector, Panposh
      cum-Chairmen, R.M.C., Panposh
       and Another                ....            Opposite Parties
      _____________________________________________

        For Petitioner   : Mr. P.K.Jena, Advocate,

         For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, AGA


      _______________________________________________________
      CORAM:
           JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                              JUDGMENT

22nd August, 2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This writ application involves interpretation of the

provision under sub-Rule (7) of Rule-3 of Odisha

Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958 (for short

OAPM Rules), invoking which the nomination paper of

the petitioner in the election of members of Panposh

Regulated Market Committee (RMC) was rejected by the

Election Officer.

2. Facts

Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are

that the petitioner is an elected ward member of

Biramitrapur Municipality. By Notification dated

12.09.2024, ṭhe Election Officer-cum-Sub-Collector,

Panposh notified the dates of election of members to

Panposh RMC. The petitioner submitted her nomination

paper on the date fixed. At the time of scrutiny on

23.10.2024, the Election Officer rejected the nomination

paper of the petitioner on the ground that her husband

Bijay Bhengara is an employee of Panposh RMC for

which she is disqualified as per the Rule 3 (7) of the

OAPM Rules.

3. Case of the Petitioner

According to the petitioner, such rejection of her

nomination is entirely illegal as Sub-Rule (7) of Rule-3

does not apply to her because she has her own income

from a Women's Self-help Group whereas her husband

was appointed on contractual basis by the secretary of

Panposh, RMC on daily wage basis and is not a regular

employee. Further, her husband was subsequently

engaged to work against the post of market guard which

has not yet been approved though the Secretary,

Panposh, RMC has recommended for the same. The

result of election was declared on 12.11.2024 and

because of rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper

no nominated member could be a part of the RMC. It is

stated in addition that the petitioner gets allowance of Rs.

1,000/- from the Municipality as a Councilor and being

the only daughter of her parents besides a brother, she

resides in the house of her parents at Biramitrapur and

runs a grocery shop earning about Rs. 6,000/- per

month. According to the petitioner, the Election Officer

has misinterpreted the provision under Rule 3(7) of the

Rules.

4. Stand of the State Opposite Parties

The stand of the Opposite Parties is that the petitioner's

husband Bijay Bhengara was appointed as Market Guard

vide order dated 04.10.2018 under Rehabilitation

Assistance Scheme with approval of the OAPM Board.

The election Officer has acted strictly within the rules to

reject the nomination of the petitioner. Since her

husband works for the Market Committee, it must be

held that she indirectly benefits from such employment

and therefore, Rule 3 (7) applies.

5. Submissions:

Heard Mr. P.K.Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State.

6. Mr. Jena would argue that the Election-Officer has

completely misinterpreted the relevant statutory

provision inasmuch as the petitioner's husband is

admittedly not a regular employee but engaged on daily

wage basis with his engagement yet to be approved. He

further submits that no opportunity of hearing was

accorded by the election officer to the petitioner before

rejecting her nomination paper. Had such opportunity

been given, the petitioner could have demonstrated the

fact that she has her own independent source of income

and that she does not depend on her husband's income

in any manner. The Election Officer has however drawn

adverse inference and acted on presumption.

7. Mr. Pattnaik, learned AGA on the other hand, would

submit that the disqualification clause is clear and

unambiguous. It does not make any distinction between

regular or temporary employees. Since it is a fact that the

petitioner's husband is working under the RMC though

on daily wage basis, the same would operate as a bar for

her to the elected as a member of the RMC. The election

Officer has duly considered the relevant facts and rightly

rejected the nomination paper.

8. Analysis and Findings:

The facts are not disputed inasmuch as the petitioner is

an elected Ward Member of Biramitrapur Municipality

and was recommended as a nominated member of RMC,

Panposh. It has not been disputed that her husband was

initially appointed on contractual basis by the Secretary

Panposh, R.M.C. on 20.03.2015 on daily wage basis and

subsequently against the post of Market Guard under

Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. His appointment has

not yet been approved. The appointment order dated

04.10.2018 shows that the petitioner's husband was

engaged as Market Guard in R.M.C, Panposh on

consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs. 8070/- under

the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on contractual

basis. Turning to the relevant Rule i.e., Rule 3 of OAPM

Rules it is seen that the same relates to disqualification

of membership for being chosen a member of a market

committee. Sub-Rule Rule 7 reads as follows:

["(7) if he has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any contract or employment with , or on behalf of, or under the Market Committee : Provided that a person shall not be chosen as a member representing the traders' constituency if he does not ordinarily reside within 10 miles of the market yard and it he has not been registered under Rule 60. Explanation - For the purpose of this rule a person shall be deemed t o be ordinarily residing within 10 miles of the market yard, if he resides in such yard for not less than 180 days in a calendar year."

Now the question is, whether the above rule applies to

the petitioner. According to the State, the employment of

the petitioner's husband attracts the mischief of the rule.

On a plain reading of the rules, this Court is inclined to

accept such view. To amplify, the rule provides that if a

person directly or indirectly has any share or interest in

any contract 'or employment' under the market

committee, he shall be disqualified. Though the word

'directly' or the words 'share' and 'interest in any

contract' would have no application but the words

'indirectly' and 'employment' and 'under the market

committee' would be highly relevant and apply to the

facts of the case. The petitioner's husband being

employed under the Market Committee the same

obviously enures to the benefit of the petitioner albeit

indirectly.

9. It has been next argued that the rule would apply only

in case of regular employment but not contractual

employment like that of the petitioner's husband. This

Court is unable to accept the argument for the reason

that the word 'employment' occurring in Sub-Rule 7 is

not qualified in any manner whatsoever. Per force, the

plain and ordinary dictionary meaning of the word

'employment' is to be considered. Considered thus, the

word 'employment' would take within its ambit every kind

of employment, permanent and temporary etc. In the

case of UPSC v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup, (2008) 11 SCC 10,

the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"14. The term 'employee" is not defined in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, nor is it defined in the advertisement of UPSC. The ordinary meaning of "employment" is any person employed is the employee and the person employing is the employer. In the absence of any restrictive definition, the word "employee" would include both permanent or temporary, regular or short term, contractual or ad hoc. Therefore, all persons employed by MCD, whether permanent or contractual will be 'employees of MCD"

In an almost similar case, this Court in the case of Malati

Sahu vrs. State of Odisha relied upon the judgment in

Jamuna Kurup (supra) and held that even if a person is

not holding a civil post, he is to be treated as employee of

the department as long as his engagement subsists.

10. It has been also argued that no opportunity of

hearing was granted to the petitioner by the Election

Officer before rejecting her nomination paper. Without

entering into the controversy as to whether any such

opportunity was granted or not, this Court would rather

rely upon the Doctrine of Empty Formality in the facts of

the case. To amplify, had an opportunity been given, the

petitioner obviously could not have denied the fact that

her husband was working as Market Guard under the

RMC, Panposh. In fact, she has admitted the same before

this Court in the present writ application. At the most

she would have stated that she does not depend on her

husband's income but then, even if such a plea had been

taken, it would have not cut much ice as there is nothing

in the rules to serve as an exception to the

disqualification clause under Sub-Rule 7.

11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds

no reason to interfere with the impugned order of

rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper.

Resultantly, the writ application is found to be devoid of

merit and is therefore, dismissed.

...............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak