CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–Exercising jurisdiction vested under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (in short ‘the Act’), the State Election Commission, Bihar, (in short ‘the SEC’) by its order dated 05.04.2022 passed in Case No. 1/2022 (Vineeta Kumari Vs. Mamta Kumar), has declared that the petitioner suffers from disqualification to hold the post of Mukhiya in terms of Section 136(1)(b) of the Act and has accordingly, by the said order, relieved the petitioner from the post of Mukhiya of Kajpa Gram Panchayat of Rafiganj Block in the district of Aurangabad.

2. The said order dated 05.04.2022, issued vide memo No.1/2022/1380 dated 06.04.2022, is under challenge in the present writ application.

3. We have heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, learned counsel for the State Election Commission, Mr. Ajay, learned G.A.-5 for the State of Bihar and Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.7.

4. Before considering the facts asserted in the writ petition to assail the impugned order, we have considered it apposite to shortly narrate certain relevant admitted facts. The petitioner and respondent no. 7 had contested the election for the post of Mukhiya of the aforesaid Kajpa Gram Panchayat. The petitioner having secured highest number of votes was declared as the returned candidate for the said post. The election was held on 20.10.2021 and the result was declared on 22.10.2021. Respondent No. 7 made an application before the SEC under Section 136(2) of the Act asserting therein that the petitioner had not attained the age of 21 years as on the date of election and, therefore, she was disqualified to hold the post of Mukhiya by operation of Section 136 of the Act. Respondent No. 7 claimed that the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the school and college is 17.02.2001, whereas she had wrongly entered her date of birth as 17.01.1996 in her nomination form. Without referring to further details as disclosed in the complaint filed by respondent No. 7, we must notice, at this stage, that the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in her matriculation certificate is indisputably 17.02.2001. This factual position is not at all in dispute. Before passing of the impugned order, the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing by the SEC. From the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner relied on an admission register maintained by the Madhya Vidyalaya, Salaiya to make out a case that her actual date of birth was 17.02.2000, which was inadvertently recorded as 17.02.2001 for matriculation examination and accordingly 17.02.2001 was entered as her date of birth in the matriculation certificate. She also placed reliance before the SEC, on an application filed by her before the Bihar School Examination Board for correction in the date of birth, which is still pending. She took a plea that the complaint filed before the SEC by respondent No. 7 deserved to be rejected as the dispute related to the petitioner’s age, which could not be determined without adducement of evidence and the matriculation certificate could not be treated to be an unimpeachable evidence for the purpose of determining the issue of disqualification on the ground of age. The SEC has filed a counter affidavit justifying its decision as contained in the impugned order, which is based on various documents including the documents maintained by the Bihar School Examination Board of the matriculation examination indicating petitioner’s date of birth as 17.02.2001.

5. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that after filing of the complaint by respondent No. 7, the SEC had sought a report from the District Election Officer (Panchayat)-cum-District Magistrate, Aurangabad. According to him, a report was submitted by the District Magistrate with a clear finding that the date of birth of the petitioner was 17.01.1996 with