Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for Petitioner has argued that Secretary of Watershed Committee can be only a person who is secondary pass and its President can be a person against whom there is no criminal case registered. Neither the Secretary is secondary pass nor the President is free from criminal record because an FIR has been registered against him for offence under Sections 466, 467, 471 and 120B IPC. Prayer is therefore made that order dated 09.07.2010 be quashed and Respondents be directed to constitute a fresh committee. It is argued that Para 8 of government instructions dated 28.04.2010 provides that selection of Secretary shall be made on the basis of qualification and experience and that only such dedicated person of village who is at least metric, shall be appointed as Secretary.
(2.) SHRI Jinesh Jain, learned Government Counsel for Respondents State, has cited guidelines of Government of India regarding the scheme in question issued in 2008 and argued that in that guidelines there is no such requirement of metric pass, although it is mentioned that selection shall be made on basis of qualification and experience. It is submitted that a person Hazari Lal, Respondent No. 8, has been appointed as Secretary of Watershed Committee, whereas he is primary school pass but he has more experience therefore he was selected. Regarding Respondent No. 7, learned Counsel could not give any explanation why despite criminal case registered against him he was selected. Learned Counsel for private Respondent No. 7 also opposed writ petition.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for parties and perused material on record, I find that guidelines of Government of India in Clause 6.4 (46) although provide that the Secretary shall be selected on the basis of qualification merit but this does not mean that a person who is post graduate shall be ignored for the sake of a person who is primary school pass on ground of experience. Learned Counsel is not in a position to show as to what kind of experience Respondent No. 8 possesses. Besides that registration of criminal case against Respondent No. 7 was sufficient reason why he should not have been selected but the State Government has additionally introduced by its order dated 28.02.2010 certain such conditions which may be in addition to those prescribed in the Government of India guidelines; once the same are in the State Government instructions, such guidelines cannot be ignored for sake of political expediency. The selection of Respondent No. 7 is therefore vitiated by extraneous considerations and same is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to hold fresh selections within a period of one month.;