IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 6292 of 2008 Date of decision: 3.8.2010 Prem Chand .. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & Others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S.Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The application was filed by the petitioner in the year 1999 before the Tribunal with the following reliefs:- “(i) That the proviso to Section 137A of the H.P.Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997 may be quashed and set-aside as being irrational, unjust and unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. (ii) That the (annexure A-5) may be quashed and set-aside as being irrational, unjust and 2 unconstitutional as violative of Article s 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to allow the applicant to work as Panchayat Assistant. (iv) That the resolution passed by the Respondent No.3 whereby respondent No.4 has been selected /appointed as Panchayat Assistant may be quashed and set-aside. Specially when the applicant has secured highest marks in the interview conducted on 26.10.99.” 2. In the reply at paragraph 2, it is stated as follows: “2. That it would be pertinent to mention here that it is evidently mentioned under rule 137 of the H.P.Panchayati Raj (General) Rule, 1997 that no person shall be employed by a Panchayat, if he is a near relative (father, grand-father, father-in-law, maternal or paternal uncle, son, grand son, son-in-law, brother, nephew, brother-in-law, wife, sister, sister’s husband, mother, daughter, niece, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law and husband of any of its members. The applicant was appointed as Gram Panchayat Sahayak on contract basis, but when it was found that he is the real brother of the then Pradhan Sh. Sher Singh of that Panchayat and also of ward member Sh. Lal Chand found violative under rule 137 of the H.P.Panchayati Raj (General) 3 Rule, 1997. As such in his place Respondent No.4 was selected and appointed as Panchayat Sahayak against which no cause of action accrues to applicant. Hence, present O.A. is not maintainable.” 4. It is clear from the rules that the legislature has intended consciously to keep away near relatives of the office bearers of the elected Gram Panchayat for being employed under the Panchayat where the selection process is conducted by the Pradhan or such other office bearers as referred to in the Rules. The Rule has a salutary purpose. The Pradhan and such other office bearers are elected representative of the people and in case their near relatives are permitted to work in the Panchayat, as per selection conducted by the Pradhan or such other office bearers, it will not be in public interest, as per legislative wisdom of the rule making authority. There is no contention that the rule is made outside the legislative competence of the rule making authority. The contention is that the rule is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. With the source of power to make the legislation and with the purpose for which the 4 rule is made, as discussed by us above, it cannot be said that it is in any way unjust and unreasonable. Therefore, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. August 3, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (GR/Vt) Judge.