In Sapna Devi vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department (2025), Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of Patna High Court set aside the order dated February 19, 2024 passed by the Bihar State Election Commission because it was "not sustainable in the eye of law". The by which the election of the petitioner against the post of Mukhiya of Bijubigha in Meskaur Block in the district of Nawada has been cancelled". The judgement was delivered on March 21, 2025.
Sapna Devi, the petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing of the order dated February 19, 2024 contained in тето по. 695 passed by the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, by which her election against the post of Mukhiya of Bijubigha in Meskaur Block in the district of Nawada was cancelled in terms of the provisions contained under Section 136(1) (D) read with Section 136 (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 while holding the petitioner to be disqualified to contest the election. She had also prayed for issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities to refrain from giving effect the order dated February 19, 2024 passed by the Commissioner, State Bihar, Election Patna and allow her to continue in the capacity of Mukhiya Bijubigha in Meskaur Block in the district of Nawada following her election in the said capacity in accordance with law. She had sought issuance of a declaration holding that in terms of the provisions contained under Section 136(1) of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006, the petitioner was duly qualified for being elected as the of the concerned Gram Panchayat and as such, she did not suffer any disqualification.
Spana Devi had resigned from the post of the Community Mobiliser on September 29, 2021 and the same was accepted by the authority on the same day and after resigning from the post of Community Mobiliser, she contested the election of Mukhiya and she was elected. Subsequently, Abdul Rashid Khan, the respondent No. 9 had filed a complaint before the State Election Commission, Bihar. After hearing the party and from perusal of the record, the State Election Commission had come to the conclusion that on the relevant date the petitioner was serving as the Community Mobiliser and as such, she was receiving payment and thus was not eligible for filing her nomination/elected as Mukhiya. The post was declared vacant under Section 136(1)(d) read with Section 136 (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The Commission issued direction for fresh election on the post. The High Court was informed that she had resigned from the post in question on September 29, 2021 and the same was received on the same day in the office of the concerned respondent. Her counsel submitted that the payment of Community Mobiliser which suggests that the monthly payment of the Community Mobiliser is on the basis of honorarium based
on their performance, which suggests that the Community Mobiliser is not holding a civil post and the petitioner is neither the holder of any civil post nor she is a Government Servant or any organization in which she has been appointed on the honorarium basis.
Notably, District Project Manager under District Project Coordination Unit of BRLPS at Nawada had communicated that the Community Mobiliser is not a regular employee and Community Mobiliser are only part time staff of the village organization and even selection of the Community Mobiliser are done by the village organization.
The fact is that the post of Community Coordinator by voluntary organization (Jeevika) under Bihar Rural
Livelihood Promotion Society which receives fund by the World Bank as well as Government of Bihar to implement welfare schemes.
It was pointed out that Section 136(1)(d) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 does not come into picture inasmuch as the payment to the petitioner was completely through Self Help contributions and not from any finance provided by the State Government or from any Government agency.
Relying on the judgment dated May 15, 2014 passed in CWJC No. 15345 of 2013 in Veena Devi vs. The State Election Commission & Ors. (2014) wherein the communication issued by the Election Commission vide letter no. 1499 dated March 6, 2011 giving instruction to all the District Magistrate and District Election Officers (Panchayat) to hold that ‘the ASHA’ workers are not eligible to contest the Panchayat Election was interfered with.
The other respondents were State Election Commission through its Secretary. Commissioner, State Election Commission, Secretary, State Election Commission, District Magistrate, Nawada, Sub Divisional Officer, Rajaul, Nawada, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Nawada, Block Development Officer, Meskaur, Nawada, Abdul Rashid Khan, Medhkuri, Sirdalla, Nawada and Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotiion Society (BRLPS), Patna through its Chief Executive Officer.
After undertaking a joint reading of the terms of the provisions contained under Section 136 (1) (Gha), Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the order dated May 15, 2014 passed in Veena Devi vs. The State Election Commission & Ors., and office order dated February 20, 2015 of the Jeevika makes it crystal clear that Spna Devi was not holding a civil post on the date of filing of her nomination paper for the post of Mukhiya. Ignoring this fact the State Election Commission passed its order dated February 19, 2024. From the perusal of the Section 136 (1) (Gha) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the High Court's judgement underlined that institution receiving aid from Central or State Government or any local authority” and it appears from the office order dated February 20, 2015 of the Jeevika suggest that the Community Mobiliser is not a civil post and she was paid on the honorarium basis and the Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society which receives fund from the World Bank to implement the welfare schemes.
No comments:
Post a Comment