POOJA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue(s) involved in both these writ petitions are one and the identical, thus the same are being taken up and heard analogously and being disposed of by this common order, with the consent of the parties.

(2.) Heard Mr. S.B. K. Manglam, learned counsel duly assisted by Mr. Awnish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, learned counsel duly assisted by Mr. Girish Pandey, learned counsel for the Bihar State Election Commission, Ms. Rashmi Ranjan, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ranjeet Choubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.11 (in C.W.J.C. No. 10059 of 2023).

(3.) The petitioners in both the writ petitions are elected Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Siur under Roh Block of Nawada district and Gram Panchayat Raj Wari under Singhiya Block of Samastipur district, respectively. On being aggrieved by the order(s) issued by the respondent/the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, filed these writ petitions assailing the order(s), whereby the petitioners have been declared disqualified to hold the post of Mukhiya on the ground that the petitioners' social status as has been determined by the General Committee (Caste Scrutiny Committee) of General Administration Department are not that of the social status, for which the post(s) of Mukhiya of concerned Gram Panchayat Raj was/were reserved. The petitioners also sought for a declaration that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is not final and remedy of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been provided by the judgment itself. Thus, in view of the full Bench judgment of this Court in Rajni Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar and Others reported in 2019 (4) PLJR 673, since there was no unimpeachable evidence before the State Election Commissioner as the order passed by the General Committee of General Administration Department had already been challenged by the petitioners before this Court, the impugned order(s) passed by the respondent/State Election Commissioner is/are without jurisdiction.