SANTOSH JAGANNATH GALBE v. THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
Gram Rojgar Sevak Post is Not an Office of Profit; Appointment by Gram Sabha Precludes Disqualification under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:13550
Decision Date: 30-03-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958; Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977; Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005; Constitution of India, Articles 102, 191, and 227; Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011 (Service Conditions of Gram Rojgar Sevak)
- Facts: The petitioner, Santosh Jagannath Galbe, was an elected member of the Village Panchayat, Devegaon. Concurrently, he worked as a 'Gram Rojgar Sevak', a position facilitated by a Government Resolution (GR) dated 02.05.2011 to assist in the implementation of employment guarantee schemes. Respondent No. 3 filed a dispute seeking the petitioner's disqualification, alleging that the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak constituted an "office of profit" or a salaried position under the gift or disposal of the Panchayat, thereby violating Section 14(1)(f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958.
- Procedural Posture: The District Collector, Parbhani, initially disqualified the petitioner via an order dated 03.01.2024. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Additional Divisional Commissioner on 27.06.2024. The petitioner challenged both these orders before the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) through this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Issue: Does the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sevak' constitute a salaried office or a "place of profit" in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat, and does it result in a disqualifying "interest" in the work of the Panchayat under Section 14(1)(f) or (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958?
- Holding: No. The Court held that a Gram Rojgar Sevak is not a permanent employee of the Panchayat, does not hold an office of profit in its gift, and is not disqualified from being a member of the Village Panchayat.
- Reasoning: The Court analyzed the GR dated 02.05.2011, noting that the Gram Sabha, not the Village Panchayat, is the appointing authority. The position is part-time, contractual, and outsourced. Crucially, the honorarium is paid from a 6% administrative fund reserved for the scheme's execution, not from the Village Panchayat’s own funds. To determine an "office of profit", the Court tested the source of appointment, remuneration, and disciplinary control, concluding that the Panchayat lacked these powers over the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not a regular employee and the Panchayat did not control his appointment or payment, the provisions of Section 14(1)(f) and (g) were not attracted. The lower authorities had failed to appreciate the specific service conditions defined in the governing Government Resolution.
🔒 For Members Only