Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) THE Court: The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated November 12, 2008 is questioning a decision of the Block Development Officer, Harischandrapur -I, Malda, a copy whereof was sent to her by a memo dated July 14, 2008. By the decision the BDO directed the Secretary of a Gola More SSK to explain, inter alia, the circumstances concerning the petitioner's appointment in the SSK as the third Sahayika. The BDO informed the Secretary of the SSK that an inquiry conducted by his office had revealed illegality in the petitioner's selection for appointment to the post. He directed that during pendency of the matter the petitioner should not be paid honorarium.
(2.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner was selected for appointment to the post. The allegation was that since her mother -in -law was a member of the Managing Committee of the SSK, she was not eligible for the post. It is not disputed that the petitioner's mother -in -law was a member of the Managing Committee at the date she was selected for the post. Mr. Das appearing for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner's mother -in -law was an Ex -officio Member of the Managing Committee, in view of a clarificatory Government Order dated May 02, 2008 there was no prohibition against appointing the petitioner; and that, in any case, after approval of the appointment the Managing Committee could not remove the petitioner who, under any circumstances, was entitled to honorarium for the period she was in employment.
(3.) I am unable to see how the clarificatory Government Order dated May 02, 2008 is relevant. It was applicable to appointment of Samposarak and Samposarika in MSK. In any case, it does not say that a near relation of a member of a Panchayatraj Body who is also a member of the Managing Committee of an MSK can be appointed as a Samposarak or Samposarika in the MSK.;