IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6615 of 2011 1. Arbind Kumar Sinha, s/o Late Shidheswar Prasad, State General Secretary, Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association presently posted as Asst. Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank Bodh Gaya, resident of Mohalla-269 A.P. Colony, P.S. Rampur, District-Gaya 2. Hari Shankar Prasad s/o Late Nag Narayan Prasad, Secretary, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank Employees Association presently posted as Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank Kujapi, resident of Mohalla- Gawalbigha, P.S. Civil Lines, Distt. Gaya 3. Anjani Kumar Mishra s/o Late Shurtidhar Mishra, resident of Mohalla- S.K.Charana-2 Flat No. 202 near Civil Lines, P.S. Civil Lines, Distt-Gaya, presently posted as Manager, Madaya Bihar Gramin Bank Jetiyan Gaya 4. Shailendra Nath Prasad s/o Late Kashi Nath Prasad, resident of mohalla- Anand Gharana Flat No. 201 near Kochar Petrol Pump P.S. Civil Lines, District-Gaya, presently posted as clerk cum cashier Regional Office Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank- Gaya …….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The State Election Commission, Virchand Patel Marg, Patna 3. The Secretary, State Election Commission, Virchand Patel Marg, Patna 4. The District Election Officer (Panchayat)-cum- Distt. Magistrate, Gaya ……………. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State Election Commission: M/s. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate and Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate For the State: A.C. to GA 8. ----------- 2. 20.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for the State Election Commission. 2 The petitioners seek quashing of the letter dated 4.4.2011 issued by the District Election Officer (Panchayat)-cum- District Magistrate, Gaya, respondent no. 4 by which the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 have been appointed as Patrolling Magistrate and petitioner no. 4 has been appointed as a Presiding Officer in the ongoing Panchayat Election 2011 from 20.4.2011 to 18.5.2011 in Gaya District. All the petitioners are employees of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Gaya and two of them are also office bearers of the employees association. The only case of the petitioners is that by a letter dated 15.4.2006 the employees of the Magadh Gramin Bank, Nawada had been exempted from election duty in the Panchayat Elections 2006 by the order of the Secretary, State Election Commission contained in letter dated 12.4.2006 in terms of Rule 32 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 under which the employees of Central Government/undertakings/ Corporations of the Central Government were exempted. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that in such circumstances, it 3 was not open to the District Election Officer (Panchayat), Gaya to have issued letter dated 4.4.2011 requisitioning the services of the petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4. Learned counsel has also produced before the Court a circular dated 28.2.2011 issued by the Secretary, State Election Commission in which it is stated that the employees of Central Government/Central Public Undertakings/ Banks are not to be involved in election work. Learned senior counsel for the State Election Commission, however, submits that the letter dated 12.4.2006 had been issued by the State Election Commission in terms of the law which was prevailing during the Panchayat Election 2006. It is submitted by him that by the Bihar Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2009, sub-section (9) had been added to Section 125 under which services of employees of any authority including a Government company of the Central Government or any other Institution/Undertaking or Enterprise of the Central Government can also be requisitioned by the concerned authority of the State 4 Election Commission. It is pointed out by learned counsel that the circular dated 28.2.2011 issued by the Secretary, State Election Commission to all the Divisional Commissioner, District Magistrates-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat) starts with quoting Section 125 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 but the newly added Sub-section (9) by the Amending Act, 2009 is conspicuously absent from the said circular and thus it was only due to oversight that the statement was made in the circular that employees of the Central Government/Central Public Undertakings/Banks are not to be deployed for election work. However, realizing the aforesaid mistake the circular letter dated 8.4.2011 had been issued by the Secretary, State Election Commission in which reference has been made to the newly added sub-section (9) of Section 125 and directions have been issued that employees of the aforesaid category may also be deployed for election work. A copy of the said circular has also been produced before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners 5 however, submits that the said circular has been issued after the writ petition has been presented for filing on 8.4.2011 after serving copies on learned counsel for the State Election Commission. The said submission of learned counsel has no relevance at all. The sole question to be considered is whether there is authority in the State Election Commission to requisition the services of the employees of Regional Rural Banks in which the Central Government is admittedly the majority share holder. It is evident that prior to the amendment in 2009 there was no such power in the State Election Commission but the same has been conferred after 2009 amendment. In the said circumstances, no reliance can be placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the earlier letter dated 12.4.2006 of the Secretary, State Election Commission. Moreover, it is evident from the circular letter dated 28.2.2011 that the same has been issued in ignorance of the recent amendments and the defect in the said letter having come to the knowledge of the State Election Commission, the same was rectified by the subsequent circular dated 8.4.2011. Once the power 6 is conferred upon the State Election Commission by the Statute, namely, the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, it is open to the Commission to rectify any mistake committed by earlier circular by issuing a fresh one at any stage. In the above circumstances, no case is made out by the petitioners for quashing the letter dated 4.4.2011 issued by the District Election Officer (Panchayat)-cum-District Magistrate, Gaya. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)