IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 7134 of 2008. Decided on 02.08.2010. _____________________________________________________ Nagender Pal. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : None. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondents No. 3 to 5. : None. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 5 to the post of Assistant Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Baridhar, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi. It has come in the reply, to which no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner that the petitioner is nephew of Panchayat Member Smt. Anar Kali. However, as per Rule 137 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1997, the close relatives of the Pradhan and Members of the Panchayat cannot be selected against the post in Gram Panchayat. Rule 137 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1997 reads thus: “No person shall be employed by a Panchayat, if he is a near relative (father, grandfather, father-in-law, maternal or paternal uncle, son, grandson, son-in- law, brother, nephew, brother-in-law, wife, sister, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. sister’s husband, mother, daughter, niece, mother-in- law, daughter-in-law and husband) of any of its members or if he has been convicted of any criminal offence involving moral turpitude. No employee of the Panchayat shall be retained in service after attaining the age of 58 years”. 2. The State Government has also issued instructions on 5th November, 1999, whereby the provision of Rule 137 has been brought to the notice of all the Block Development Officers in Himachal Pradesh. 3. Consequently, since the petitioner himself is not eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Secretary, he cannot assail the appointment of respondent No. 5. Moreover, it has also come in the reply filed by respondents 3,4 and 5 that the procedure prescribed was adheared to at the time when respondent No. 5 was appointed to the post in question. 4. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge August 02, 2010. (bhupender)