Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the respondent no. 8, the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna in Case No. 43 of 2021 communicated vide memo no. 1000 dated 27.03.2023 by which she has been disqualified to hold the post of ‘Mukhiya’ of Gram Panchayat Raj, Bishariya under Bhargama Block in the District of Arariya on the findings arrived that she belongs to ‘Sheikh’ caste and not ‘Sheikhra’ caste and thus is not a member of Extremely Backward Class.

3. The matrix of facts giving rise to present present writ petition is/are enumerated hereinbelow.

4. The petitioner claims herself to the caste belonging to the extremely backward class (Sheikhra Caste) who contested the 2016 election for the post of ‘Mukhiya’ of Bishariya Gram Panchayat reserved for the female extremely backward class and was declared elected.

5. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against her before the State Election Commission (henceforth for short ‘the Commission’) under section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (henceforth for short ‘the Act’) to declare her disqualified to hold the post of ‘Mukhiya’ from Bishariya Gram Panchayat on the ground that she is a member of ‘Sheikh’ caste and not ‘Sheikhra’ caste which comes under the extremely backward class category.

6. Accordingly, ‘the Commission’ registered a case vide Complaint Case No. 03 of 2017 against her. Further, as the State Government under the General Administration Department had constituted a Caste Scrutiny Committee (henceforth for short ‘the Committee’) in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, ‘the Commission’ requested the said Committee to decide the dispute regarding her social status.

7. The General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna (henceforth for short ‘the Department’) accordingly referred the matter to the Criminal Investigation Department for an enquiry relating to the social status of the petitioner. As per the case, the petitioner appeared along with the documents to support her case whereafter the CID submitted its report dated 05.02.2018 to ‘the Department’ enclosing memo no. 166 dated 16.02.2018 recording its finding that she belongs to ‘Sheikh’ caste under general category (Annexure-P-1 and P-1/1 to the writ petition).

8. Pursuant thereto ‘the Department’ issued notice to the petitioner vide letter no. 2919 dated 01.03.2018 to submit her show cause (Annexure-P-2 to the writ petition). Accordingly, a show cause was filed by the petitioner before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 19.04.2018 along with supporting documents. The said Committee in its meeting dated 03.05.2018 held and subsequently, vide memo no. 6036 dated 11.05.2018 declared the petitioner to be a member of ‘Sheikh’ caste and her claim of belonging to the ‘Sheikhra’ caste was rejected. Copy was thus forwarded to ‘the Commission’ for necessary action (Annexure P-8 to the writ petition).

9. However, ‘the Commission’ vide its order dated 28.12.2019 ignoring the said findings came to a conclusion that in absence of unimpeachable material available on record, the complaint stands disposed of.

10. Aggrieved, the complainant-respondent no. 11, Rukhsana Praveen approached Patna High Court in CWJC No. 5136 of 2020 in which after issuing notice to the petitioner, the same was heard and allowed vide an order dated 14.12.2020 setting aside the order passed by ‘the Commission’ (in Complaint case no. 03 of 2017) with further direction to it to pass fresh order after taking into account the findings recorded by ‘the Committee’ considering it as an unimpeachable material.

11. The relevant part of the order dated 14.12.2020 in CWJC No. 5136 of 2020 read as follows:—

“13. Caste status of respondent no. 6 in the present case goes to the very root of the matter, as the seat of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Bishariya (Block Bhargama), Araria was reserved