PREM KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTHOUGH a case for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus has been made out and although the actions on the part of the State and its Officers are reprehensible and should be deplored, l would not issue a writ of mandamus, as has been prayed for, in the present Writ Petitions.

(2.) BY Section 157 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, amongst others, the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was repealed. The 1993 Act, by Section 151 thereof, imposed obligation upon the State Government to make rules relating to the method of recruitment and terms & conditions of service including the pay and allowances, provident fund and gratuity of the employees of the Panchayat. Section 32 of the 1993. Act provides that there shall be a Secretary in every Gram Panchayat, who shall be appointed by the State Government. Section 32A of the 1993 Act provides that for general watch and ward and for meeting emergent events, i.e. fire, breaking of an embankment or bridge outbreak of epidemic and to encounter burglary or dacoity etc. and also to perform such duties imposed by the Government from time to time and for maintenance of public peace and order, a Gram Raksha Dal shall be organised under a Dalpati, appointed in the prescribed manner, for every Gram Panchayat and all able -bodied persons of a village between the age of 18 and 30 years shall be members of the said

(3.) DESPITE it having been pointed out by this Court that the matters pertaining to appointment of Dalpati, as provided in the 1993 Act, is quite different, it was not noticed that a new employee to be appointed for the Panchayat had been conceived in the 1993 Act, as the 1947. Act authorised appointment of a Sevak, i.e. an Assistant, the 1993 Act envisaged appointment of a Secretary.