IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.836 of 2008 MD. SAJJAD ALAM, SON OF LATE MD. ZAFIRUDDIN R/O VILLAGE-DIN NAGAR, BLOCK ISLAM NAGAR ALIGANJ, DIST-JAMUI………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY PANCHAYTI RAJ GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA, NAMELY SRI K.C.JHA. 2. THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYATI RAJ BIHAR, PATNA, NAMELY SRI MAYANK BARBARE. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMUI, NAMELY SRI PREM SINGH MEENA. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER, JAMUI, DIST-JAMUI, NAMELY, SRI VED PRAKASH 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ISLAM NAGAR, ALIGANJ, DISTT-JAMUI, NAMELY, SRI PRABHU DAS………….CONTEMNOR…...…….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 05/ 01-Sep-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG-2 appearing for the State. 2. The order of Division Bench whose violation is being alleged contains a conditional direction to the respondents/concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sevak if in future decision is taken by the Government for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sevak. CWJC No. 1936 of 2004 which concerns this petitioner exclusively was disposed of with a further direction to the respondent to consider 2 the case of the petitioners for relaxation of age for appointment on the post Panchayat Sevak if the Government takes a decision for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sevak in future. 3. It is the firm stand of the State as reflected by averment in the show-cause that after the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, a new post of Panchayat Secretary with different responsibilities and qualification was created and it requires to be filled up by the State Government and hence there was no scope to continue with the past system of selecting qualified Dalpati for the post of Panchayat Sevak. 4. A reliance has been placed upon a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar V. Subhash Chandra Shukla reported in (2009) 4 PLJR 569 to highlight the fact that the Division Bench accepted the aforesaid submission and held that after the 1993 Act a Dalpati cannot as a matter of right be considered for appointment as Panchayat Secretary. Paragraph-15 of that judgment was also placed before us in support of the stand of 3 the State Government that it was under compulsion to appoint 531 persons as Panchayat Secretaries from amongst Dalpatis on account of some earlier Court decisions having attained finality. 5. Before us, in the present case the State has taken a firm stand that petitioner’s case is not covered by any earlier decision of this Court which has attained finality and hence in his case the stand of the Government is that his claim cannot be considered for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sevak because beyond persons required to be accommodated on account of Court’s orders which have attained finality, the State Government has taken a clear decision not to make any further such appointments from Dalpatis to the post of Panchayat Secretary. 6. The requirement to consider relaxation of age would have arisen only if there was a decision for making any further appointment from the post of Panchayat Sevak/Panchayat Secretary. 7. In the facts of the case, we find no good ground to take action against the opposite parties under contempt jurisdiction. This contempt 4 application is, therefore, dismissed. perwez ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)