Smt. Sugapati Devi vs State of Bihar and Others

S.K. Katriar, J.—Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha for the petitioner, Mr. R.C.P. Bharti, learned Standing Counsel No. 15, and Mr. M.S. Hoda for respondent No. 10. This relates to allegedly irregular payment to a Shiksha Mitra under the orders of the Commissioner of the Division. The petitioner is Mukhiya of Piroo Gram Panchayat, Block-Haspura, District-Aurangabad. She raises a grievance that the District Magistrate and the Commissioner of the Division have been issuing orders forcing the petitioner to make payment to various Panchayat Shikshaks and had to be carried out under the threat of action. In view of the provisions contained in Section 11(3) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, a Gram Panchayat has a separate legal entity with a common seal and perpetual succession and can sue and be sued in its own name. It has been so held in the following judgments:

(i) Vijay Shanker Pathak Vs. The State of Bihar and Others .

(ii) Judgment dated 22.8.2007, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3623 of 2007 (Abdul Quadir and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others.)

The only two authorities are recognised in terms of the provisions of rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules''). The Deputy Development Commissioner under certain circumstances, and the Block Development Officer under other circumstances, can deal with the matters specified therein. The Rules do not recognise any other authority.

It is manifest that the District Magistrate or the Commissioner are no authorities under the Rules with respect to the alleged irregularities with respect to the appointment of Shiksha Mitra and/or Prakhand Shikshak. The petitioner has carried out any such order issued by the Commissioner or the District Magistrate at his own peril. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.