IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18316 of 2010 1. ABHAY KUMAR S/O TEJ NARAYAN YADAV R/O VILL.- TILKOHRA, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MURLIGANJ BLOCK, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, MURLIGANJ BLOCK, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 6. THE PRESENT MUKHIYA OF DEENA PATTI SAKHUA GRAM PANCHAYAT MURLIGANJ BLOCK R/O VILL.- DEENA PATTI, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 7. SRI TRIBHUWAN PRASAD SINGH EX-MUKHIYA OF DEENA PATTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O VILL.- DEENA PATTI, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 8. HIRA KUMAR S/O SRI SHEETAL PRASAD SAH R/O VILL.- SHAKHUA, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 9. MANOJ KUMAR S/O SRI JANARDAN PRASAD YADAV R/O VILL.- GOPALI TOLA, TILKOHRA, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 10. DAYANAND YADAV S/O SRI MANJIT YADAV R/O VILL.- BRINDAWAN, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 11. RATAN KUMARI D/O SRI BHAGWAN PRASAD YADAV, W/O MIRAJ KUMAR R/O VILL.- GOPALI TOLA, TILKOHRA, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 12. ANITA KUMARI D/O SRI DEONATH TATMA, W/O PREM ANUTHISH R/O VILL.- BRINDAWAN, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 13. MUKESH KUMAR S/O SRI NAND KISHORE YADAV R/O VILL.- GOPALI TOLA, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 14. SURESH RISHIDEO S/O LATE DAMODAR RISHIDEO R/O VILL.- TILKOHRA, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 15. DHRUBH KUMAR S/O SRI DEEP NARAIN YADAV R/O VILL.- MEERAGARH, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 16. PANCHAYAT SACHIV -CUM- PANCHAYAT SEVAK OF DEENA PATTI GRAM PANCHAYAT MURALIGANJ BLOCK, P.S.- MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA ----------- 02. 19.5.2011 Annexure-4 is the order passed by the Block Development Officer, Murliganj. This order has been passed in light of the directions issued by the High Court in CWJC 2 No.7392 of 2008. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that despite a clear direction of the Court, claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Block Development Officer by non- applying his mind to the questions and the issues raised. The Court has gone through the impugned order contained in Annexure-4. There is no violation of any direction in the said order because the BDO has rightly held that after 1.7.2006 the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra stood abolished and therefore no person can be appointed on such a post now. There is no merit in the writ application as there is no infirmity in the order impugned . Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)