MUMBAI: Bombay high court on Friday in an interim order accepted a statement by Maharashtra government that only a government officer would be appointed as administrator of a gram panchayat and not a private person.
The government servant who would be roped in would be ‘extension officers’ from four departments of agriculture, health, education and panchayat. The HC asked the state to also consider appointing ‘gram sevaks’ as administrators.
State advocate general Ashutosh Kumbhakoni informed a bench of Justices S S Shinde and MS Karnik specially assigned to hear a batch of petitions filed across benches of the HC, that till the matter is decided, the government would not appoint any private individuals.
The bench sought an affidavit from the state that it would not appoint any private individuals in the interim till petitions are heard, as the AG made the assurance orally. It allowed the state to now appointed administrators to Panchayats where “ terms had ended or will end this week.’’
The state in its affidavit said 1566 gram panchayats from 19 districts had their terms ended between April and June 2020 and 12668 will have theirs ending between July and December 2020.
The petitions challenged a July 13, 14 government resolution (GR) that directed Chief Executive Officers of Zilla Parishads to consult guardian ministers of the district in appointing administrators from the local population, to almost 14000 gram panchayats whose terms expired or are due to expire soon. The GR issued since elections stood postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, is not stayed.
Last month, the Bombay HC had laid down an interim arrangement to give first preference to government officials. A day later on July23, a Nagpur bench of the HC last month stayed the the July 13 government resolution that delegated the selection power to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Zilla Parishad, observing that such power was granted by merely issuing a GR.
The state promptly issued a Gazzetted notification empowering the Zilla Parishad CEO.
Milind Sathe counsel for one of the petitioners said such appointments of private persons were legally unwarranted and “mass appointments’’ would have a lasting adverse impact.
The government servant who would be roped in would be ‘extension officers’ from four departments of agriculture, health, education and panchayat. The HC asked the state to also consider appointing ‘gram sevaks’ as administrators.
State advocate general Ashutosh Kumbhakoni informed a bench of Justices S S Shinde and MS Karnik specially assigned to hear a batch of petitions filed across benches of the HC, that till the matter is decided, the government would not appoint any private individuals.
The bench sought an affidavit from the state that it would not appoint any private individuals in the interim till petitions are heard, as the AG made the assurance orally. It allowed the state to now appointed administrators to Panchayats where “ terms had ended or will end this week.’’
The state in its affidavit said 1566 gram panchayats from 19 districts had their terms ended between April and June 2020 and 12668 will have theirs ending between July and December 2020.
The petitions challenged a July 13, 14 government resolution (GR) that directed Chief Executive Officers of Zilla Parishads to consult guardian ministers of the district in appointing administrators from the local population, to almost 14000 gram panchayats whose terms expired or are due to expire soon. The GR issued since elections stood postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, is not stayed.
Last month, the Bombay HC had laid down an interim arrangement to give first preference to government officials. A day later on July23, a Nagpur bench of the HC last month stayed the the July 13 government resolution that delegated the selection power to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Zilla Parishad, observing that such power was granted by merely issuing a GR.
The state promptly issued a Gazzetted notification empowering the Zilla Parishad CEO.
Milind Sathe counsel for one of the petitioners said such appointments of private persons were legally unwarranted and “mass appointments’’ would have a lasting adverse impact.
Coronavirus outbreak
Trending Topics
LATEST VIDEOS
More from TOI
Navbharat Times
Featured Today in Travel
Get the app