IMPORTANT POINT
The decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee regarding caste status is considered final and unimpeachable unless set aside by a competent court, and the State Election Commission can act on such findings to disqualify candidates.

JUDGMENT :

(Harish Kumar, J.) :

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.

4. The short facts which led to the filing of the writ petition(s) is/are that the posts of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Siur under Roh Block of Nawada district as well as Gram Panchayat Raj Wari under Singhiya Block of Samastipur district were reserved for the Members of Extremely Backward Classes. The petitioners claiming themselves to be Members of Extremely Backward Classes, had filed their nomination to contest for the post of Mukhiya of the afore-noted Gram Panchayats. It is the specific case of the petitioners that there was no challenge to their candidature of their caste certificates by any candidate or any voter whatsoever either at the time of nomination or at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination paper by the returning officer. The petitioners, therefore, contested the election and after counting of votes, they were declared elected by the returning officer.

5. After declaration of result of election in favour of the petitioners, defeated candidate(s) had approached the State Election Commission by filing a complaint under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (for short ‘the Act of 2006’) with a prayer to declare the petitioners disqualified to hold the post of Mukhiya of respective Gram Panchayat Raj on the ground of they being not the Members of Extremely Backward Class for which the posts were reserved.

6. Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though according to the law laid down by the full Bench of this Court in Rajani Kumari (supra), the State Election Commission has been authorized to entertain a complaint under Section 136(2) of the Act of 2006, only when a party approaches the State Election Commission with the evidence