The main legal point established in the judgment is that the condition of residency for the appointment of Nyaya Mitra did not violate Article 14 or 16(2) of the Constitution of India, considering the nature and period of engagement.

The challenge in the present writ application in public interest is to Rule 5(a)(i) of the Bihar Gram Katchahry Nyaya Mitra (Employment, Service Conditions and Duties) Rules, 2007 (for short, ‘the Rules’). The relevant clause reads as under:-

“5. For appointment:-

(a) Qualification:-

(i) He/she must be a citizen of India and resident of the concerned district of the State of Bihar;

(ii) At least a law graduate from any recognized institute or university shall be eligible for appointment on the post of Nyaya Mitra of Gram Katchahry.”

2. The aforesaid Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 146 read with Section 94(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the Act’). It is submitted that the condition that the candidate must be resident of the concerned district of the State of Bihar is violative of mandate of Articles 14, 15, 16, 35(a)(i) and 162 of the Constitution of India. It is pointed out that the Constitution of Gram Katchahry by election was upheld by this Court in a judgment reported as AIR 1996 Patna 112, Krishna Kumar Mishra and another v. The State of Bihar & others, therefore, a Nyaya Mitra is not an appropriate candidate to handle the legal issue as he/she must be an advocate having at least three years experience.

3. In the counter affidavit, it has been pointed out that the Rules have been framed to regulate terms and conditions of appointment of Nyaya Mitra in each Gram Katchahry of the State which is elected body of Sarpanch and Panches constituted under Section 90 of the Act. Section 94(2) of the Act provides for Nyaya Mitra in each Gram Katchahry for assistance to the respective Gram Katchahay to be appointed in the manner as prescribed. Therefore, the Rules have been framed for appointment of Nyaya Mitra. Relevant provisions of Act read as under:-

94. Assistance to Gram Katchahry–

(1) There shall be a secretary in every Gram Katchahry to be appointed in the manner as may be prescribed.

(2) There shall be a person called Nyaya Mitra having at least a three year Law Degree from a recognised Institution or University to assist the Gram Katchahry or any bench thereof in the discharge of its duties. Such Nyaya Mitra shall be appointed in the prescribed manner.

(3) In order to enable the Gram Katchahry to perform its functions effectively, the State Government shall, in the prescribed manner, make arrangements for training of the Sarpanch, the Up-Sarpanch and Panches of the Gram Katchahry.

146. Power of Government to make Rules-

(1) The Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.

(2) Every rule made under this section shall be laid before each House of the State Legislature.

(3) A Rule under this Act may be made with retrospective effect and when such a Rule is made the reasons for making the Rule shall be specified in a statement and laid before both Houses of the State Legislature. Subject to any modification made under this Act, every Rule made under this Act shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.

(4) In making a Rule under this section the Government may provide that a person guilty of breach thereof shall, on conviction, be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and where the breach is a continuing one with further fine which may extend to a maximum of twenty-five rupees for every day on and after the first day on which the breach continues.”

4. It is further stated that Nyaya Mitra is appointed on contract basis which is not a full-fledged civil post, but it is a contract employment. It is an advisory post to assist the Gram Katchahry in discharge of its duties. Such Rules are not in conflict with the Constitution of India or the Act. There is reference to the few judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as to the extent of judicial interference in the Rules framed.

5. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the qualification based upon the resident