IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.7571 of 2008 Date of decision:13.7.2011 Rakesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr.Vishal Panwar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for Respondents No.1 &2. Ms.Sunita Sharma, counsel for Respondent No.3. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders Annexures A-6 & A-8 whereby his services as Panchayat Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Nanwan have been dispensed with and the appeal filed by him has also been dismissed. 2. The undisputed facts are that the applicant was appointed as Panchayat Sahayak in the aforesaid Panchayat. His appointment was challenged by one Sh.Jai Lal by filing a Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur mainly on the ground that the Pradhan of the Panchayat is the real Uncle of the present petitioner and therefore the petitioner could not have been appointed as Panchayat Sahayak. 3. Sh.Vishal Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in the month of September, 1999 and there was no stipulation debarring the close relatives in the notification specifically relating to Panchayat Sahayaks. 4. There is no merit in this contention. Rule 137 of the General Rules itself clearly lays down that no close relatives mentioned in the rule who are related to the office bearers of the Panchayats, could be employed in a Panchayat. This general Rule was already in existence and in fact when the matter came up for consideration before the Gram Panchayat, the Secretary of the Panchayat brought it to the notice of the Panchayat that as per Rule 137 the 3 petitioner was not eligible for appointment. This objection of the Panchayat Secretary was over-ruled by none-else but the pradhan of the Gram Panchayat who is the real Uncle of the petitioner. By over-ruling this objection, the Pradhan has clearly shown his bias which is writ large on the proceedings. 5. There is no further need to prove the bias. Even if, no such Rules had been in existence the Pradhan would have been expected to withdraw from the selection process and should not have taken part in the selection process where the close relative was on the applicants. The selection process is hit by bias and there is no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed. No costs. July 13, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge