IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14496 of 2010 NILAM KUMARI d/o Sri Kishori Sah w/o of Sri Ashok Kumar,resident of village- Basahiya, P.O.- Pipra Dadan,P.S. Kanhauli, District- Sitamarhi. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 4.The Member, District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi. 5. The District Superintendent of Education-cum- Program Co- ordinator, Sitamarhi. 6. The Block Education Officer, Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi. 7.The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Dostiya, Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi. 8.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Dostiya, Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi. 9. The Headmaster, Government Middle School, Basahiya Hindi, Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Satish Chandra Mishra & Md. Nurul Hoda. For the State : Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Singh, A.C to S.C.21. 2 8.10.2010 The petitioner was selected for appointment as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003. She had applied for the said appointment as a general category candidate and was selected as such but while making appointment, the petitioner was appointed as against the post of EBC. She continued to work and subsequently in the year 2006, she was absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. The Mukhiya, who then came to power, recommended for cancellation of petitioner’s appointment to the Block Development Officer on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly appointed on the post reserved for EBC. The Block Development Officer cancelled the petitioner’s appointment as 2 Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner represented before the Collector, who called for an enquiry in the matter. The enquiry was favourable to the petitioner clearly pointing out that the petitioner was selected as a general candidate but while appointing her, she was wrongly placed in the position of EBC. The petitioner was nevertheless to be appointed under general category. As no action was being taken in spite of the report, the petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No.13204 of 2008, which was disposed of on 13.7.2009 (Annexure 20) giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal in that regard. The Appellate Tribunal pursuant to the order of this Court examined the matter and found that the petitioner’s appointment could not be faulted. The tribunal thus directed for re- instatement of the petitioner. The petitioner’s grievance before this Court is that notwithstanding the direction from the tribunal, which is the statutory authority, Panchayat is not reinstating the petitioner . Learned counsel for the State very fairly states that the tribunal being a statutory authority and the final authority in the matter, every person is bound to obey the order of the tribunal. In that view of the matter, in my view, there remains no controversy. In view of the provisions of Rule 18 of 2006 Rules, the tribunal is adjudicating body upon which statutory authority is conferred, which exercises the jurisdiction over the Panchayat 3 in matters of appointment of Panchayat Teacher. That being so every Panchayat or Officers related to any Panchayat over which the tribunal exercises jurisdiction is bound by the order of the tribunal they cannot ignore the order of the tribunal nor can they sit over the judgment of this Court. In this connection I may refer to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhopal Sugar Industries v/s Income Tax Officer since reported in AIR 1961 S.C 182. The relevant part thereof is quoted hereunder:- “Where the Income Tax 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 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 view of the .aforesaid I have no option but to allow this writ application. Let mandamus be issued to the respondents to abide by and implement the order of the tribunal ,as above, forth with. Upon petitioner being reinstated ,she would be paid all wages for the period during which she has worked immediately. The 4 responsibility whereof would be on the Mukhiya of the Panchayat concerned. The writ petitioner is accordingly allowed. Namita ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)