IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13463 of 2010 Bharti, Daughter of Sri Jagdish Das, Resident of Auliabad, P.O.-Jhandapur, District-Bhagalpur. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1.The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar patna. 3. The District Education Officer, Bhagalpur. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur. 5. The Block Development Officer, Block Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Marba East, Block Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur. 8. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Marba East, Block Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Verma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, Adv. ----------- 2 19.11.2010 The petitioner has come to this Court for implementation of the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Authority, Bhagalpur in Appeal Case No.23 of 2010. It appears that in the year 2007, when Panchayat Teachers were being recruited, petitioner was wrongly left out and one Lucy Bharti was recruited. Petitioner complained before various authorities but nothing happened. Petitioner then moved the Lokayukt. At the instance of the Lokayukt and the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna the present case was taken up by the Tribunal being Appeal Case No.23 of 2010. The Tribunal after noticing all the parties including the said Lucy Bharti and examining the records held that the said Lucy Bharti was wrongly selected. The Tribunal by its final orders - 2 - dated 28.5.2010 has set aside the selection and appointment of the said Lucy Bharti and directed the Gram Panchayat concerned to appoint the correct person accordingly, which would ordinarily be the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding this order, which is binding of the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat, he is not acting and implementing the said order so much that this having been brought to the notice of the Tribunal. The Tribunal issued notice to the Mukhiya in this regard warning him, that he would be prosecuted, if he would not implement the order of the Tribunal. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, in my view, the Mukhiya has no authority to ignore the order of the Tribunal. In this connection, I may refer to State Government notification No. 3716 dated 23.10.2008, issued by the Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar while constituting the said Tribunals it is clearly stipulated that the order of the Tribunal is final against which no appeal lies to any person/authority. That being so, in my view, there is no escape for the Mukhiya but to implement the order of the Tribunal forthwith. I may only refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the Case of Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer, Bhopal since reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 182 wherein the Apex Court has held thus:- “Where the Income-tax - 3 - Officer had virtually refused 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 or 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 view of the judgment of the Apex Court aforesaid, I direct the Mukhiya to take action in accordance with the order of the Tribunal forthwith within fifteen days from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. He must immediately look into the records and find as to who was the - 4 - person wrongly deprived of appointment at that stage of appointment of the said Lucy Bharti. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Namita (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)