1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3343 of 2008 Smt.Sugandha Luma Diwate ... Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.b.Gawade for the petitioner. Mr.P.P.kakade, A.G.P. for the State/Resp.Nos.1 to 3. Mr.U.B.Nighot i/by S.R.Agarkar for the respondent No.4. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 24TH JUNE, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court contending that the respondent no.4, who has been elected to the Gram Panchayat and then thereafter elected as a Sarpanch of the village, is disqualified from holding that post. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 was working as a Swayamsevika in a Vastishala at Barki, Vasaiwadi, Village 2 Taleran, Tal. Junnar. It is contended that she continued to work there till she was elected as the Sarpanch of the village. The petitioner raised a dispute being Dispute Application No. 26 of 2006 contending that the respondent No.4 had incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(f) & (i) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (in short, “the Act”). The dispute has been decided by the Collector, Pune, who has held that the respondent No.4 was not disqualified in any manner since she was not holding an office as mentioned in Section 14(1)(f) or (i) of the Act. It has been held that since the respondent No.4 was a Swayamsevika, she was working voluntarily as a teacher in a Vastishala for which she was paid an honorarium of Rs. 500/-. The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, has upheld the order passed by the Collector and has found that the respondent No.4 has not incurred any disqualification. 2. Section 14 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act deals with disqualifications of members of Panchayat. Section 14(f) and (i) read as under:- “Sec.14(1). No person shall be a member of a panchayat continue as such, who - (a) ......... (b) ......... (c) ......... (d) ......... (e) ......... 3 (f) holds any salaried office or place of profit in the gift or disposal of the panchayat, while holding such office or place. (g) .......... (h) .......... (i) is a servant of the Government or a servant of any local authority. 3. In my view, both the authorities below have correctly appreciated the facts in the matter. A Swayamsevika i.e. voluntary teacher, earning an honorarium, cannot be considered to be holding a salaried office or place of profit at the disposal of the Panchayat. The Vastishala is run by the State government and, therefore, the panchayat has nothing to do with the same except appointing persons to the Vastishala. Therefore, in my view, besides the fact that the respondent does not hold a salaried office, she is merely a voluntary teacher who has been appointed by the Village Education Committee. 4. In any event, the respondent cannot be considered as a servant of the Government or the servant of any local authority as this would presume that there is an element of remuneration in terms of employment for the respondent. Both authorities below have rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. 5. Writ petition rejected. .....