Judgment Birendra Prasad Sinha, J. 1. By this application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order contained in Annexure 1. The order contained in annexure 1 has been passed by the Sub-divisional Officer cum Election Officer, dinapur, rejecting the nomination of the petitioner for the post of Mukhia, madhwa Makhmilpur Gram Panchayat, in the district of Patna. The petitioner was the sitting Mukhia, of the said Gram Panchayat having been elected on 31st. May, 1971. A programme for holding the general election of the Gram Panchayat was published fixing 22-4-1978 as the last date for filing nomination. The petitioner also filed his nomination paper. At the scrutiny held on 24-4-1978, his nomination paper was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was disqualified under the provisions of section 79 (e) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It appears that a vote of no-confidence has been passed against the petitioner by the members of the Executive Committee for certain acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner. Ultimately, by an order dated 13-11-1973, contained in Annexure 3, the petitioner was removed from his office under the provisions of section 13 (3) of the act. Against the rejection of his nomination paper, the petitioner filed an application before the Sub-divisional Officer, who rejected his petition and found that the petitioner was disqualified under section 79 (e) of the Act. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. 3. The question is whether the order of removal passed under section 13 of the Act will act as a disqualification under section 79 of the Act. Sec.79 of the Act lays down the various disqualifications under which a person shall be disqualified for election, nomination or appointment as a Mukhia, member of the executive Committee, Sarpanch or Panch. The petitioner has been found to be disqualified under section 79 (e) of the Act which reads as under : "79 (e ). Has been dismissed from the service of the Central or State government or any local authority for misconduct and has been declared to be disqualified for employment in the public service. " 4. The petitioner has been found to be disqualified under section 79 (e) of the Act which reads as under : "79 (e ). Has been dismissed from the service of the Central or State government or any local authority for misconduct and has been declared to be disqualified for employment in the public service. " 4. This leads us to the question whether a Mukhia, Sarpanch, a Member of the Executive Committee or a Panch is in the service of the Central or State government or any local authority. Service implies a relationship of master and servant. A Gram Panchayat is a body corporate. A Mukhia, Sarpanch, member of the Executive Committee or a Panch are all elected under the provisions of the Act. They are not appointed by the Gram Panchayat nor can be dismissed by the Panchayat. These posts do not carry any salary. A Mukhia can be removed by the Gram Panchayat at any meeting specially convened for the purpose in the prescribed manner. If such a resolution of no confidence is passed by the Gram Panchayat, the Mukhia will be removed by the Government. The government itself may remove the Mukhia or any other Member of the Executive committee for misconduct, in capacity or neglect of duty on the recommendation of the prescribed authority. But on account of the provisions contained in section 13 of the Act, a Mukhia or a Member of the Executive Committee does not become servant of the State Government or any local authority. Sec.13 does not provide any period for which a Mukhia can be removed. It is, however, manifest that the Mukhia or any other Member of the Executive Committee may be removed under section 13 for the remaining period of his term of office. In my opinion, removal of a Mukhia under the provisions of section 13 of the Act does not disentitle him from contesting any future election. It does not operate as a disqualification. As stated above, the various disqualifications are enumerated in section 79 of the Act. Sec.79 of the Act does not provide that the removal of the Mukhia under section 13 of the Act will also become a disqualification for any future election. It was suggested at the bar that section 79 (1) (e) which refers to corrupt practice may be invoked against the petitioner. Sec.79 of the Act does not provide that the removal of the Mukhia under section 13 of the Act will also become a disqualification for any future election. It was suggested at the bar that section 79 (1) (e) which refers to corrupt practice may be invoked against the petitioner. Any person who has been found guilty of a corrupt practice is disqualified under section 79 (1) e ). This corrupt practice refers to corrupt practice committed in the election by any candidate. It is defined in the Panchayat Election Rules and means any of the practices specified in Parts I and II of Schedule 1. Parts I and ii of Schedule I do not mention removal of a Mukhia under section 13 of the act as a corrupt practice. Corrupt practice means bribery, undue influence etc. committed by any candidate during the election. If any Election Tribunal before whom an election is challenged, finds the returned candidate guilty of committing any corrupt practice, he will be disqualified under section 79 (1) (e) of the act may be that a Mukhia is removed under section 13 of the Act of corruption. But the word "corrupt practice" mentioned in section 79 of the Act does not refer to that. It only refers to the corrupt and illegal practice committed at the time of and during the election. In such a situation, it is difficult to hold that that the petitioner was disqualified under section 79 (c) or 79 (1) of the Act his nomination paper was, therefore, wrongly rejected by the Election Officer and the order passed by the authority contained in Annexure-1 has got to be set aside. 5. At the time of admission of this case, no stay was granted and I am told that the election of the Gram Panchayat has been held. The elected Mukhia is not a party to this application. The result of quashing Annexure 1 would be that the petitioner should be deemed to be a validly nominated candidate for the election. There is, however, no prayer for setting aside the election of the mukhia. In the facts and circumstances of this case, even if there would have been any such prayer, I would not have acceded to it. Therefore, quashing of annexure T would not affect the election of the Mukhia or any other office bearer of this Madhwa Makhmilpur Gram Panchayat. In the facts and circumstances of this case, even if there would have been any such prayer, I would not have acceded to it. Therefore, quashing of annexure T would not affect the election of the Mukhia or any other office bearer of this Madhwa Makhmilpur Gram Panchayat. The result would be only that the petitioner will not be disqualified on this ground from contesting the election for the post of mukhia in future. 6. This application, therefore, succeeds and the order contained in annexure 1 is quashed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Petition allowed.