Validity of Nyaya Panch appointments upheld, one found invalid due to moral turpitude conviction.

The court upheld the validity of the appointments of Nyaya Panches by the District Magistrate, except for Baijnath Singh, whose appointment was deemed invalid due to a disqualification stemming from a conviction involving moral turpitude. The court directed Baijnath Singh not to function as a Nyaya Panch and declared a vacancy in his office. Other claims raised by the petitioner were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Validity of the appointment of Nyaya Panches by the District Magistrate.
2. Qualification requirements for Nyaya Panches under Rule 85 of the Panchayat Raj Rules.
3. Disqualification of Baijnath Singh due to conviction involving moral turpitude.
4. Authority of the District Magistrate in making appointments.
5. Timing of the appointment of Nyaya Panches relative to the filling of all Gaon Panchayat seats.
6. Validity of the election of Sarpanch and Sahayak Sarpanch.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Validity of the appointment of Nyaya Panches by the District Magistrate:
The petitioner challenged the appointments of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as Nyaya Panches on the grounds that the District Magistrate made these appointments prematurely, as some seats in the Gaon Panchayat were still unfilled. The court held that the District Magistrate's appointments were valid despite some unfilled seats, as Section 43 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act did not require waiting until all seats were filled.

2. Qualification requirements for Nyaya Panches under Rule 85 of the Panchayat Raj Rules:
The petitioner alleged that Achhaibar Singh (respondent No. 4) did not meet the literacy requirement, as he could not read and write Hindi correctly. The court found that Achhaibar Singh could read and write Hindi in Devanagari script fluently, satisfying the requirement under Rule 85.

3. Disqualification of Baijnath Singh due to conviction involving moral turpitude:
Baijnath Singh (respondent No. 3) was convicted under Section 182 I.P.C. The court examined whether this conviction involved moral turpitude. It concluded that an offence under Section 182 I.P.C., whether under Clause (a) or (b), involved moral turpitude. Therefore, Baijnath Singh was disqualified from being appointed as a Nyaya Panch under Section 5-A(h) of the Act, rendering his appointment invalid.

4. Authority of the District Magistrate in making appointments:
The petitioner argued that the appointments were made by a selection committee, not the District Magistrate. The court accepted the District Magistrate's assertion that he made the appointments personally, considering the committee's views. It upheld the validity of the appointments, stating that the District Magistrate was the appointing authority under Section 43 of the Act.

5. Timing of the appointment of Nyaya Panches relative to the filling of all Gaon Panchayat seats:
The petitioner contended that the District Magistrate should have waited until all Gaon Panchayat seats were filled before appointing Nyaya Panches. The court found no requirement in Section 43 or Section 12-A for the District Magistrate to wait for all seats to be filled. It held that the appointments were valid as long as the appointees were elected in accordance with Section 12(6) and Section 12-A.

6. Validity of the election of Sarpanch and Sahayak Sarpanch:
The petitioner sought to restrain the election of Sarpanch and Sahayak Sarpanch until all Nyaya Panches were appointed. The court noted that Section 44 of the Act and Rule 83A required these elections to be held within one month of completing Nyaya Panch appointments. As the appointments were made, there was no bar to the elections. The court dismissed the petitioner's objection.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition except for Baijnath Singh's appointment, which was found invalid due to his disqualification from moral turpitude. Baijnath Singh was directed not to function as Nyaya Panch, and a vacancy was declared in his office. The petitioner's other claims were rejected, and no order was made as to costs.

---