M-S GUJARAT PRADESH PANCHAYAT PARISHAD AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 634

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: C.K. THAKKER, P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

Case summary

M-S GUJARAT PRADESH PANCHAYAT PARISHAD AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

MIS GUJARAT PRADESH PANCHAYAT PARISHAD AND ORS. v. >- STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. JULY 30, 2007 [C. K. THAKKERANDP. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN,JJ. ] Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993-ss. 83 and 162-Powers of President + ofDistrict Panchayat vis-a-vis powers ofDistrict Development Officer-In the administration of District Panchayat-Held: Powers conferred on District Development Officer u/s 162, regarding executive matters are 'absolute' and . unqualified'-And not subject to orders of the President of District Panchayat-President of District Panchayat is empowered to secure only implementation ofPolicy decisions-Part IX ofthe Constitution only conferred constitutional status to the Local SelfGovernment to the District Panchayats, anddoes not require the District Development Officer to exercise his executive powers, subject to the orders of the President of District Panchayat- Constitution of India, 1950-Part IX, Article 243-G (as inserted by Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992).

Appellant No. 2 District Panchayat, is a member of appellant No. 1society. The District Panchayat passed a resolution that District Development Officer (ODO) shall consult the President of the District Panchayat in matters of recruitment, app~intment, transfer, promotion, posting, deputation etc. of all Panchayat employees of the District Panchayat. ODO-respondent No. 3 did not observe the resolution on the ground that such powers could be exercised only by the DDO and the President of District Panchayat had no voice in executive or administrative functions. Appellants flied Writ Petition. 'f- Single Judge of High Court dismissed the Petition endorsing the view ofthe DDO interpreting the provisions ofGujarat Panchyats Act, 1993 by referring to the Rules framed thereunder. Division Bench of High Court, in Lett~rs Patent Appeal approved the judgment of Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal Dismissing the appeal, the Court -)-- HELD: 1. 1.

It cannot be said that the District Development Officer must -( GUJARATPRADESHPANCHAYATPARISHADv. STATEOFGUJARAT 635 exercise statutory powers conferred on him by Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ,. /'" only after consulting the President ofthe District Panchayat or the President of the District Panchayat can issue omnibus directions to the District Development Officer to place all files relating to recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer, deputation, disciplinary action, etc. before him prior to taking any action in such matters. IPara 39) (653-E, F) 1. 2. It cannot be said that the powers conferred on District Development Officer are not 'absolute' or 'unqualified' but they are subject to orders of -t-- the President of the District Panchayat. Reading s. 162 ofthe Act as a whole and the use of the words "ifany" clearly suggests that the power exercisable by the District Development Officer under the Act is statutory power to be exercised by him.

The executive initiation remains with the District Development Officer and he need not wait for a 'nod from the President' before performing any administrative function or taking any executive decision within the four corners of law. (Para 31) 1650-E, F, G) Syed Bashiruddin Ashrafv. Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis-e-awqafand Ors. , 11965) 2 SCR 205, followed. ~ 1. 3. The District Development Officer who is vested with the executive powers of the District Panchayat is not required to obtain prior or even subsequent orders of the President of the District Panchayat. In individual cases, the President may direct the District Development Officer to take appropriate steps for securing effective implementation of resolutions or orders passed by the Panchayat or ofany committee thereof. (Para 33) (651-C, DJ 1. 4. In matters relating to services under the Panchayats, no express .... power has been conferred nor duties imposed on the President of the District Panchayat or members (elected wing).

The Legislature thus intended services under the Panchayats to be dealt with separately by the District Development Officer and other officials of the Panchayat. It may be recalled that District Development Officer is Class-I Officer of the Indian Administrative Serviee appointed by the State. He is also ex-officio Secretary of the District Panchayat. (Para 341 (651-E, F) 1. 5. Section 83 of the Act empowers the President to secure ~ ~implementation or policy decisions taken by the elected wing of the District Panchayat by issuing necessary instructions and directions to District Development Officer. IPara 29) 1650-A) 1. 6. There is clear distinction between elected representatives and civil servants. Elected representatives of the people at District Panchayat level will formulate policy and civil servants will execute it by implementing programmes and policy decisions.

In matters offormulation of policies and programmes also, civil servants may make significant contribution by bringing the relevant data to the notice of the political executive. Likewise, elected representatives may inform civil servants about problems and difficulties of people which can be taken care of by the administration. But, both the functions are to be performed by two wings which are different though interdependent. (Para 38] (653-C, D, El ·+ A. Sanjeevi Naidu, etc. v. State ofMadras andAnr. , (1970) l SCC 443; and Tar/ochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab, (2001) 6 SCC 260, relied on. "Government an(i Bureaucracy in India of1947-76" by Mr. B. B. Mishra, referred to. 2. The controversy raised and interpretation sought to be suggested by the parties as regards powers of President of District Panchayat on the one hand and ofthe District Development Officer on the other has nowhere affected directly or even indirectly Part IX of the Constitution.

The question agitated has no bearing on constitutional set up or status of Local Self Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of the High Court impugned in the present appeal is inconsistent with the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution. (Para 28] (649-D, E, Fl Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation ofthe City ofAhmedabad and Ors. , (2006) 8 SCC 352, followed. 3. It is true that the Rules (delegated Legislation) must be consistent with the provisions of the Act (parent Legislation). But it cannot be said that the High Court was wrong in referring to those rules while interpreting the provisions of the Act. Reading the relevant provisions ofthe Act and the Rules G.

framed thereunder harmoniously, it appears to be crystalclear thhaDt~n t~e matters ofservices under the Panchayats, the Legislature wanted t e istnct Development Officer and other officials ofthe District Panchayats to exercise statutory powers and the High Court was right in referring to the Rules. (Para 41) (654-B, q CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3340 of2007. GUJARATPRADESHPANCHAYATPARISHADv. STATEOFGUJARAT[C. K. THAKKER, J. J 637 From the Judgment & Order 14. 06. 2005 ofthe High Court ofGujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No. 1126/2002 in Spl. Civil Appln. No. 1192 of2002. Huzefa Ahmadi, Nakul Dewan, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, E. C. Agarwala, Gaurav Goel and Varun Mathur for the Appellants. Sumita Hazarika, Hemantika Wahi and Shivangi for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered C. K. THAKKER, J. l. Leave granted. 2.

A question of considerable public importance has been raised by the appellant in the present appeal which has been instituted against judgment and order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat in Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad & o,. s. v. State ofGujarat & Ors. , in Special Civil Application No. 1192 of 2002 and companion matters decided on 25th October, 2002 and reported in (2003) 1 Guj LR 633 and confinned by a Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1126 of 2002 decided on June 14, 2005. .. 4. 3. To appreciate the controversy raised in the appeal, few relevant facts may be stated: 4. The Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad, appellant No. I herein, is Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. All District Panchayats, Taluka Panchayats and Gram Panchayats are members of the Parishad. Appellant No.

I purports to protect the interest of the Panchayats in the State ofGujarat by ensuring that their members function as institutions of 'Local Self Government'. Appellant No. 2 is the Sabarkantha District Panchayat consisting of elected representatives. Appellant No. 3 is the President of the said District Panchayat. Respondent No. I is the State of Gujarat, Respondent No. 2 is the Development Commissioner, while respondent No. 3 is the District Development Officer of Sabarkantha District Panchayat. 5. The question raised by the appellants before the High Court as well ... as before us centres round the powers ofthe District Development Officer vis- ..... a-vis the powers of the President of District Panchayat in the administration of District Panchayat under the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter -(· referred to as 'the Act'). 6.

According to the appellants, Part IX ofthe Constitution read with the '\ )- relevant provisions of the Act leaves no room for doubt that the District '"'.! - Development Officer is expected to exercise all executive powers ofthe District Panchayat, subject to the orders, if any, of the President of the District Panchayat. .. , 7. It is alleged by appellant No. 2 that the District Development Officer, Sabarkantha (Respondent No. 3) started ignoring the President of the Dis1. rict Panchayat in matters concerning administration, particularly relating to appointment, transfer, promotion, posting, etc. , of Panchayat employees. The appellant No. 2, District Panchayat, Sabarkantha, therefore, passed Resolution -+ No. 6 on November 21, 200I, inter alia, resolving that the District Development Officer shall consult the President of the District Panchayat in matters of recruitment, appointment, transfer, promotion, posting, deputation etc. of all Panchayat employees of the District Panchayat.

By an Office Order dated December 13, 200 I the President of the District Panchayat in'the purported exercise of the power under Section 83 read with Section 162 of the Act, directed the District Development Officer to place all the files relating to recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer and deputation ofemployees in the District Panchayat for his prescribing powers and functions of District Development Officer. The relevant ' part is sub-section (I) which reads thus: ~' . ~ 162. Powers and functions of District Development Officer. -(I) Save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the executive Ipowers of a district panchayat for.

the purpose of carrying out the Iprovisions of this Act, shall vest in the District Development Officer who shall subject to the orders, if any, of the President or of the district Panchayat, as the case may be- (a) perform all the functions and exercise all the powers specifically ~ imposed or conferred upon him by or under this Act, or under any law for the time being in force; and I (b) lay down the duties of all officers and servants of the district \ 1 panchayat. 22. Chapter XIII (Sections 227-236) makes. detailed provisions relating to services. Section 227 requires constitution of Panchayat services in connection with the affairs of Panchayats and clarifies that Panchayat Service shall be ;. distinct from State Service. It states that the State Government may by order ~-· from time to time determine the classes, cadres and posts and the initial strength of officers and servants in the Panchayat service.

Sub-section· (5) is important and reads thus: (5) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the State Government may make rules regulating the mode or recruitment either by holding examinations or otherwise and conditions of service or persons appointed to the Panchayat service and the powers in respect of r appointments, transfers and promotions of officers and servants in the Panchayats service and disciplinary action against any such ~y . ,. officers or servants. 23. Section 230 provides for allocation of officers and servants to Panchayat service. 24. The Act enables the Government to make rules (Sections 227, 228, ~ 235, 236, 274). 25. In exercise of powers conferred by the Act, the State Government I )- ..... has framed several rules relating to services under the Panchayat. The learned Single Judge referred to those rules and. observed that so far as Panchayat GUJARATPRADESH PANCHAYATPARISHADv. STATEOFGUJARAT[C. K. THAKKER. l.

) 647 service is concerned, District Development Officer, Deputy District Development Officer and other officials are having vide powers in recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer, deputation, disciplinary matters, etc. , of employees. 26. The argument that the view taken by the High Court has destroyed or considerably eroded constitutional set up in Part IX ofthe Constitution has not impressed us. In our opinion, it cannot be said that interpretation of various provisions of the Constitution or the Act has disturbed, trun~ated or adversely affected the status of Panchayats guaranteed by the Constitution. Part IX ofthe Constitution confers certain powers on Local SelfGovernment. It promises duration of five years, free and fair election, representation of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes in the administration of institutions of Local SelfGovernment, 'no-interference' by other organs ofthe State, including judiciary, etc.

In our opinion, however, the High Court was right in observing that "a District Panchayat cannot arrogate to itself the status of a body. as independent or autonomous as a Province in a Federation". Part IX of the Constitution or Article 243-G makes no change in the essential feature ofthe Panchayat organization. What was sought to be done by the Seventy-third Amendment was that constitutional status to the Local Self Government was conferred to District Panchayats, Taluka Panchayats and Village Panchayats. A State Legislature, in the light ofconstitutional provisions in Part IX. cannot do away with these democratic bodies at the local level nor their normal tenure be curtailed otherwise than in accordance with law nor State Govtmment can delay elections of these bodies. 27.

A question similar to one in hand of interpretation of provisions of the Constitution in Part IX-A concerning Municipalities came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation ofthe City ofAhmedabad and Ors. , [2006) 8 SCC 352 : JT (2006) 9 SC 320. Examining the underlying object of inserting Part IX- A by the Constitution (Seventy-fourth) Amendment Act, I992 and highlighting effective and meaningful role to be played by local bodies in political governance of the country, K. G. Balakrishnan, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated; "The object of introducing these provisions was that in many States the local bodies were not working properly and the timely elections were not being held and the nomiitated bodies were continuing for ·- --( long periods.

Elections had been irregular and many times unnecessarily delayed or postponed and the elected bodies had been superseded or suspended without adequate justification at the whims and fancies of the State authorities. These views were expressed by the then Minister of State for Urban Development while introducing the Constitution Amendment Bill before the Parliament and thus the new provisions were added in the Constitution with a view to restore the rightful place in political governance for local bodies. It was considered . necessary to provide a Constitutional status to such bodies and to ensure regular and fair conduct of elections. In the statement of objects and reasons in the Constitution Amendment Bill relating to urban' local bodies, it was stated: In many States, local bodies have become weak and ineffective on account of variety of reasons, including the failure to hold regular elections, prolonged supersessions and inadequate devolution of powers and functions.

As a result, urban local bodies are not able to perform effectively as vibrant democratic units ofself-Government. Having regard to these inadequacies, it . is considered necessary that provisions relating to urban local bodies are incorporated in the Constitution, particularly for - (i) putting on a firmer footing the relationship between the State Government and the Urban Local Bodies with respect to: (a) the functions and taxation powers, and (b) arrangements for revenue sharing. (ii) ensuring regular conduct of elections. (iii) ensuring timely elections in the case of supersession; and (iv) providing adequate representation for the weaker sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women. Accordingly, it has been proposed to add a new Part relating to the. Urban Local Bodies in the Constitution to provide for- *** *** *** (t) fixed tenure of 5 years for the Municipality and re-election within . a period of six months of its dissolution.

The effect of Article 243-U of the Constitution is to be appreciated in GUJARATPRADESHPANCHAYATPARISHADv. STATEOFGUJARAT[C. K. THAKKER, I. ) 649 the above background. Under this Article, the duration of the Municipality is fixed for a term offive years and it is stated that every Municipality shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. Clause (3) of Article 24J-U states that election to constitute a Municipality shall be completed - (a) before the expiry of its duration specified in Clause (1), or (b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date or its dissolution. Therefore, the constitutional mandate is that election to a Municipality shall be completed before the expiry ofthe five years' period stipulated in Clause (l) of Article 243-U and in case ofdissolution, the new body shall be constituted before the expiration of a period of six months and elections have to be conducted in such a manner.

A Proviso is added to Sub-clause (3) Article 243-U that in case of dissolution, the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the Municipality for such period. It is also specified in Clause (4) of Article 243-U that a Municipality constituted upon the dissolution of a Municipality 0 before the expiration ofits duration shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued under Clause (I) had it not been so dissolved". 28. In our judgment, the controversy raised and interpretation sought to be suggested by the parties as regards powers of President of District Panchayat on the one hand and of the District Development Officer on the other has nowhere affected directly or even indirectly Part IX of the Constitution.

With respect, the question agitated has no bearing on constitutional set up or status of Local Self Government. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the decision of the High Court impugned in the present appeal is inconsistent with the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution. 29. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Section 83 of the Act, which we have already referred to. It deals with powers and functions of the President and Vice-President of the District Panchayat and, inter alia, states that the President of the District Panchayat may exercise administrative supervision c·1er the District Development Officer for securing implementation - -+ of resolutions or decisions of the Panchayat or of any committee thereof.

Inviting our attention to dictionary meaning of 'administration' and 'supervision', the counsel contended that both the expressions are of wide amplitude and take within their sweep all administrative matters which are subject to supervisory control of the President. In our view, the High Court is right that Section 83 empowers the President to secure implementation of policy decisions taken by the elected wing of the Di~ct Panchayat by issuing necessary instructions and directions to District Development Officer. 30. The learned Single Judge has explained this principle by giving an illustr~tion. It was stated that suppose a primary health centre or a primary school is tq be set up by the Panchayat. In taking such decision, elected wing of the District Panchayat would play primary role as that wing is alive to the needs of the people in the area.

If the President finds undue delay in implementation or improper implementation ofsuch decision, he may instruct the District Development Officer to take necessary steps for securing proper implementation of the resolution of the Panchayat or the decision of its Committee. But, once the centre is set up or the school is established, it is for the District Development Officer, District Health Officer or District Primary Education Officer to decide as to who should be appointed as Doctor in the health centre or teacher in the school. Such matters must be left to the administrative wing of the District Panchayat. 31. Strong reliance was placed on sub-section (I) ofSection 162 ofthe Act which enumerates powers of District Development Officer. It was st,tbmitted . that though the said provision relates to powers and functions of . District Development Officer, it states explicitly that the executive powers of the District Panchayat will be.

vested in the District Development Officer who would exercise such powers "subject to orders, ifany, of the President ofthe District Panchayat". It was, therefore, urged that the powers conferred on District Development Officer are not 'absolute' or 'unqualified' but they are subject to orders of the President of the Oistrict Panchayat. Reading the y provision as a whole and the use of the words "if any", however, clearly suggests that the power exercisable by the District Development Officer under the Act is statutory power to be exercised by him. The executive initiation remainswith the District Development Officer and he need not wait for a 'nod from the President' before performing any administrative function or taking any executive decision within the four comers of law. 32. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Syed )- - Bashiruddin Ashraf v. Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis-e-awqaf & Ors. , (1965) 2 SCR 205: AIR (1965) SC 1206. In Syed Bashiruddin Ashraf.

a Constitution Bench ofthis Court was called upon to interpret a similar expression ("subject GUJARATPRADESHPANCHAYATPARISHADv. STATEOFGUJARAT[C. K THAKKER,J. ) 65} to any order by the competent Court") under Bihar Wakfs Act, 1947. Section 32 of the Act conferred jurisdiction on the Maj/is to make temporary appointment in the office ofthe Mutawalli subject to any order by a competent . Court. It was contended that the Maj/is was not competent to appoint Moulvi on a temporary basis even if there was a vacancy without obtaining prior permission of the Court. This . court, however, negatived the argument and held that the Act clearly conferred jurisdiction on the Maj/is to mak:! temporary appointments when there was a vacancy in the office of the Mutawalli and the words "subject to any order by the competent Court" could not be construed to mean that there ought to be either prior permission or subsequent assent before the appointment.

The said words denote that the appointment was to endure according to its tenor "till an order to the contrary was passed by a competent Court". 33. In our considered opinion, the ratio in Syed Bashiruddfn Ashraf applies in interpreting the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 162 of the Act in question. The District Development Officer who is vested with the executive powers of the District Panchayat is not required to obtain prior or even subsequent orders ofthe President of the District Panchayat. In individual cases, the President may direct the District Development Officer to take appropriate steps for securing effective implementation of resolutions or orders passed by the Panchayat or of any committee thereof. 34. The High Court also considered an important aspect that in matters •E relating to services under the Panchayats, no express power has been conferred nor duties imposed on the President of the District Panchayat or members (elected wing).

The Legislature thus intended services under the Panchayats to be dealt with separately by the District Development Officer and other .... , officials ofthe Panchayat. It may be recalled that District Development Officer ip is Class-I Officer of the Indian Administrative Service appointed by the State. He is also ex-officio Secretary of the District Panchayat. 35. In A. Sanjeevi Naidu, etc. v. State ofMadras & Anr. , [1970) I SCC 443 : AIR ( 1970) SC 1102, this Court had an occasion to consider the role to be played by Council of Ministers (elected wing) . and Civil Servants ~G (administrative wing). Keeping in view the democratic governance, the Court made the following observations: .... -{ "The -:abinet is responsible to the legislature for every action taken in any ofthe ministries. That is the essence ofjoint responsibility. That does not mean that each and every decision must be taken by l tile cabinet.

The political responsibility of the Council of Ministers does not and cannot predicate the personal . responsibility of the Ministers to discharge all or any of the governmental functions. Similarly an individual Minister is responsible to the legislature for every action taken or omitted to be taken in his ministry. This again is a political responsibility and not personal responsibility. Even the most hard working minister cannot attend to every business in his department. Ifhe attempts to do it, he is bound to make a mess of his department. In every well planned administration, most ofthe decisions are taken by the civil servants who are likely to be experts and not subject to political pressure. The Minister is not expected to burden himself with the day to day administration. His primary function is to lay down the policies and programmes of his ministry while the Council ofMinisters settle the major policies and programmes ofthe government.

When a civil servant takes a decision, he does not do it as a delegate ofhis Minister. He does it on behalfofthe government. It is always open to a Minister to call for any file in his ministry and t pass orders. He may also issue directions to the officers in his ministry regarding the disposal ofgovernment business generally or as regards any specific case. Subject to that over all power, the officers designated by the 'Rules' or the standing orders, can take decisions on behalf of the government. These officers are the limbs of the government and not its delegates. (emphasis supplied) 3~. A_ similar view was expressed recently by this Court in Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State ofPunjab, [200 l] 6 SCC 260 : AIR (200 l) SC 2524 : JT (2001) 5 SC 645. 37. The parties also referred to the ''Government and Bureaucracy in India ofl 947-76" by Mr. B. B. Mishra.

The learned author, in that work, stated; "It must, however, be recognized that even the most dynamic and competent of Minister has understandable limitations which restrict the sphere of direct participation in all the intricate and detailed aspects ofadministration. These include the complexities ofa modem Government, the possibility of frequent changes in the ministerial field, the frequency of visits to constituencies, parliamentary ·~ preoccupations, and above all, the technical nature of the various decisions that have to be made without a thorollgh knowledge of GUJARATPRADESHPANCHAVATPARISHADv. STATEOFGUJARAT[C. K. THAKKER,J. ] 653 connected papers contained in original files. The Minister's dependence on his Secretary necessarily increases in a democratic set-up.

And aithough his leadership in the entire sphere of administration is in theory recognized as all pervasive, the scope of his actual operation does not go much beyond a clear understanding and direction of policy matters, and not a knowledge ofdetails. Thus, the Maxwell Committee in 1937 laid down a principle calculated to ensure administrative efficiency within the frame-work of ministerial responsibility. The Committee emphasized that as collective ministerial responsibility maintained the political unity of Government, so should the unity of administrative control of each Department be ensured by concentrating. the responsibility to advise the Minister in one official, namely the Secretary". (emphasis supplied) 38. It is evident from the above that there is clear distinction between elected representatives and civil servants.

Elected representatives of the people at District Panchayat level will fonnulate policy and civil servants will Y execute it by implementing programmes and policy decisions. In matters of formulation ofpolicies and programmes also, civil servants may make significant contribution by bringing the relevant data to the notice of the political executive. Likewise, elected representatives may infonn civil servants about problems and difficulties of people which can be taken care of by the administration. But, both the functions are to be performed by two wings which are different though interdependent. 39.

We are, therefore, unable to uphold the bald assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant that the District Development Officer must exercise statutory powers conferred on him by the Act only after consulting the President of the District Panchayat or the President of the District Panchayat can issue omnibus directions to the District Development Officer to place all files relating to recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer, deputation, disciplinary action, etc. before him prior to taking any action in such matters. 40. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court had committed an error of law in interpreting and relying on various Rules framed under the Act and in upholding the power ofthe District ' ...... ( Development Officer in relation to service matters under the District Panchayat. It was submitted that it is settled law that the delegated legislation must be subject to the parent Act and not vice versa.

When the Act itself provides that the District Development Officer will exercise powers subject ~o the order passed by the President ofthe District Panchayat, Rules cannot travel beyond the said provision nor they can be interpreted to mean that President of the District Panchayat has 'no place' in services under the Panchayat. In other words, the authority of the District Development Officer cannot be upheld in Panchayat service on the basis of the Rules framed under the Act. 41. Now it is true that the Rules (delegated Legislation) must be consistent with the provisions of the Act (parent Legislation). But it cannot be said that the High Court was wrong in referring to those rules while interpreting the provisions of the Act.

Reading the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder harmoniously, it appears to us to be crystal clear that in the matters of services under the Panchayats, the Legislature wanted the DiStrict Development Officer and other officials of the District. Panchayats to exercise statutory powers and the High Court was right in referring to the Rules. 42. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be contrary to law, inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or infringing Part IX of the Constitution. We see no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. K. KT. Appeal dismissed. . }- .