IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3951 of 2010 1. MD. RAQUIBUL HAQUE S/O MD. SAFIQUL HAQUE R/O AT & P.O.- MATHURAPUR, P.S.- ABADPUR, DISTT.- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KATIHAR 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION KATIHAR 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BARSOI, KATIHAR 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BARSOI, KATIHAR 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT SHIVANANDPUR BARSOI, KATIHAR 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY null GRAM PANCHAYAT SHIVANANDPUR, BARSOI, KATIHAR 10. SUN MOHAMMAD S/O KAMARUDDIN R/O VILL.- JATAHAR, P.O.- SHIVANANDPUR, P.S. AABADPUR, DISTT.- KATIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Rajeev Kumar Singh, Alok Kumar Singh and md. Juber Ansari. For the State : Md. Fazal Rahman, G.P.VI. 2 23.8.2010 Petitioner has come to this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent- Gram Panchayat Shivanandpur, Barsoi, District- Katihar and its Mukhiya to obey and implement the order, as passed by the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Katihar in Appeal Case no. 13 of 2008. By he aforesaid order of the tribunal, the tribunal has held that the petitioner was wrongly excluded from selection as Panchayat Teacher even though he was high above in the merit list . The tribunal accordingly directed the Gram Panchayat to 2 select the petitioner after removing the wrongly selected candidate. Petitioner had 63.11% marks as against the selected candidate with 45.55 % marks. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that consequent to the decision taken by the tribunal the Panchayat met and on 11.8.2009, as per Annexure A to the counter affidavit, Panchayat took a decision not to implement the order of the tribunal as it was disputed. It appears that on the date of counseling i.e. 28.6.2007, the petitioner was present, which is evident from Annexure 2, which is the counseling sheet, but on the ground showing every body absent from the waiting list, person with only about 45% marks was chosen for appointment. The plea taken by the Panchayat was that none appeared for counseling . Immediately thereafter petitioner protested and the Block Development Officer, Barsoi enquired into the matter . He found that the petitioner had wrongly been left out and held the appointment of the said person with 45% marks to be bad, still the Panchayt did not obey. Ultimately, the petitioner moved the tribunal in the aforesaid appeal in which the tribunal called for records and after hearing the parties held in favour of the petitioner and directed that the petitioner be selected and appointed. The order of the tribunal is refused to be accepted by the Gram Panchayat as would be evident from Annexure 8, noted above. 3 Having heard the parties, in my view, the stand of the Panchayat is clearly erroneous in law. The tribunal has been constituted under rule 18 of the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teacher (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006.It is a statutory body created to resolve the disputes. The Gram Panchayat is not a body above the said tribunal. Once the tribunal has decided the matter, the matter is final and neither can it be disputed by any person nor ignored by any person. In this connection I may refer to notification of the State Government no. 3716, dated 23.10.2008, which was issued constituting the tribunal wherein the tribunal’s functions were provided for. In clause (xv) thereof is clearly provided that the decision of the tribunal is final and it cannot be appealed against before any authority. That being so, the Panchayat or the Mukhiya has no jurisdiction to defy the order of the tribunal. It is bound to obey the order of the tribunal even if it finds that the order of the tribunal is erroneous. Here I may refer the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. –v- Income Tax Officer, Bhopal since reported in AIR 1961 SC 182 wherein Apex Court held that the High Court is bound to issue mandamus for implementation of the order of the tribunal and in the process it is not even to the High Court to go into the correctness of the decision of the tribunal- “ Where the Income-tax Officer had virtually refused 4 to carry out the clear and unambiguous directions which a superior tribunal like the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, had given to him by its final order in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him, such refusal is in effect a denial of justice , and is furthermore destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based as it is on the hierarchy of Courts . In such a case a writ of mandamus should issue ex debito justitiae to compel the Income-tax Officer to carry out the directions given to him by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court would be clearly in error if it refuses to issue a writ on the ground that no manifest injustice had resulted from the order of the Income-tax Officer in view of the error committed by the Tribunal itself in its order. Such a view is destructive of one of the basic principles of the administration of justice.” In that view of the matter, the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. Let mandamus issue to the respondents to implement the order of the tribunal immediately without demur. As the matter is very old, it is expected that the order of the tribunal would be given effect to within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Panchayat Secretary concerned. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)