IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 336 of 2009 Date of decision: 30. 7. 2009 Inder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . no For the Petitioner: Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore,and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra Dy. Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). The petitioner, by means of this writ petition has challenged the memo dated 24.12.2008, sent by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 4, directing him to either terminate the services of the petitioner or to pay the wages out of the Panchayat funds, and the order dated 25.12.2006, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The petitioner was appointed as water- guard by the Gram Panchayat Nainidhar. It is an admitted fact that the wife of the petitioner is 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - the elected Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Nainidhar. After the petitioner was appointed, it appears that this fact came to the notice of respondent No.3 Assistant Engineer concerned, who thereafter sent a letter dated 26.11.2008 to the Gram Panchayat, asking how the petitioner had been appointed to this post. The appointment of the petitioner has been made under the Scheme for Transfer of Operation and Maintenance of Rural Water Supply Schemes to the Panchayati Raj Institutions. This scheme also provides for the selection of persons for operating and maintenance of this Scheme. The Scheme contains a stipulation which reads as follows: “……The person employed should not be a close relative of Pradhan/Up-Pradhan, which means not his/her spouse and children….” It is obvious that while framing the Scheme, the framers of the Scheme felt that the close relatives i.e. spouse and children of the Pradhan and Up-Pradhan of the Panchayati Raj Institutions should not be appointed to the post. This is salutary provision in view of the fact that the appointment is made by the Panchayat itself and if such a provision was not incorporated in the Scheme then Pradhan and Up- Pradhan may end-up appointing their own close relatives to the post(s) in question. The petitioner was sent a notice dated 25.12.2008 by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat - 3 - in which a reference was made to the letter dated 24.12.2008 and the petitioner was informed that his services would stand terminated w.e.f. 1.1.2009. In the endorsement whereby copy was sent to the petitioner, It was clearly stated that the petitioner, if he so wants can putforth his views and if he does not present any proof in his favour then his services would be deemed to be terminated. According to the petitioner this notice was received by him on 5.1.2009 by which time his services had already been terminated and therefore, this notice did not amount to giving him a hearing. This may be correct. But the fact remains that even before us petitioner has admitted that his wife is the elected Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Nainidhar. Therefore, he was totally ineligible for appointment. Since he was ineligible for appointment no purpose would be served in remanding the case back to give him a hearing. In this view of the matter, the petition is rejected. CMP No. 588/2009 Dismissed. (Deepak Gupta),J. July 30, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)