IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3142 of 2010 1. MADHU KUMARI W/O TETAR KUMAR RAI R/O VILL.- JANIDIH, P.O.+P.S.- CHOGHA, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA, BIHAR 3. DIRECTOR PANCHAYATI RAJ, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHAGALPUR 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-CIRCLE OFFICER KAHALGOAN, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 6. SARPUNCH JANIDIH GRAM PANCHAYAT, BLOCK- KHALGAON, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 7. KUMARI PUJA GOSWAMI W/O KAMLESHWARI GOSWAMI R/O VILL.- JANIDIH, P.O.- GHOGHA, P.S.- KAHALGOAN, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 8. JYOTI MALA DEVI W/O AJIT KUMAR JAISWAL R/O VILL.- JANIDIH P.O. GHOGHA, P.S.- KAHALGAON, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR ----------- 03. 25.10.2010 The writ petition was filed on 22.2.2010 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General, the second copy was meant for the officials of the State Government to assist the Court by timely filing of a counter affidavit. Adjournment for the purpose was granted on 31.8.2010 also. Despite the passage of eight long months the respondents have not considered it necessary to file a counter affidavit. Prayer is made for further adjournment to file counter affidavit. The Court declines the same. The petitioner is stated to be an applicant for the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery, Janidih, Kahalgaon Block. It is her case that her name figured at serial no.1 of the merit list dated 2 21.09.2007 consisting of six names. No objection to the panel or merit position was filed by any person within the time prescribed leading to the final panel dated 5.10.2007 where she retained her position. It is submitted that on 9.10.2007, two days before the date for counseling, a fresh merit list was prepared for no justifiable reason. One Archana Kumari was placed at serial no.1 and petitioner at serial no.2. The other five persons in the original panel were correspondingly pushed down. The name of Archana Kumari did not figure anywhere in the panel dated 21.9.2007 or 5.10.2007. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5732 of 2009 disposed off on 11.5.2009. This Court directed the Collector of the District Bhagalpur to examine the claims of the petitioner vis-à-vis the aforesaid Archana Kumari and fill up the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery within a period of six months in accordance with law. The petitioner is stated to have submitted her representation along with a copy of the order of this Court on 2.6.2009 followed by a reminder on 4.1.2010. In pursuance to the same the order dated 17.11.2009 has been passed by the Block Development Officer and not by the District Magistrate as directed by this Court. The order 3 directs fresh selection process to be initiated as the post was vacant. This Court finds substance in the contention of the petitioner that it was the District Magistrate who was required to pass fresh appropriate orders on the claims of the petitioner and not the Block Development Officer. The order of the Block Development Officer does not even refer to any directions and/or instructions of the District Magistrate. It does not even discuss the merit list dated 21.9.2007 as finalized on 5.10.2007 vis-à-vis the fresh merit list dated 9.10.2007. For all intents and purposes the impugned order dated 17.11.2009 is completely non-speaking in nature. This Court on 31.8.2010 had directed that any appointment made in the mean time shall remain subject to the out come of the writ petition. If any appointment has been made in pursuance of the direction dated 17.11.2009, it shall have to remain dependent on the final adjudicatory order to be passed by the District Magistrate of any alleged ineligibility of the petitioner after due opportunity to her to defend her merit position in the panel and hearing others concerned. If no fresh appointment has been made in pursuance of the order dated 4 17.11.2009 the District Magistrate is directed in both situations to examine the claims of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If no appointment has been made afresh till date, the respondents are restrained from making any appointment till such time that the claims of the petitioner are adjudicated and disposed of after hearing all concerned. The writ application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)