IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17489 of 2009 1. MANTOO KUMAR S/O RANGALA RAM R/O VILL.- RAJAPUR, P.O.- RAJAPUR, P.S.- PIRO AND DISTT.- BHOJPUR (ARRAH) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COLLECTOR BHOJPUR (ARRAH) 5. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER BHOJPUR (ARRAH) 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK-PIRO, DISTT.- BHOJPUR (ARRAH) 7. THE SARPANCH LAXMAN RAM GRAM KUTCHERY AKARUA, BLOCK- PIRO, DISTT.- BHOJPUR (ARRAH) 8. TEJ NARAIN RAM S/O LATE NIFIKAR RAM R/O VILL.- HASWADIH, P.S.- PIRO, DISTT.- BHOJPUR (ARRAH) ----------- 02/ 23/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In the nature of the order proposed to be passed when the interest of respondent No.8 is sought to be adequately protected, this Court at this stage does not consider necessary to issue notice to him. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Secretary, Gram Kutchery from 14.2.2008. He joined and started discharge of his duties. Certain aggrieved persons filed a representation for non-consideration on the ground that they held the qualification of ‘Madhyama’ equivalent to ‘Matriculation’. This Court based on a Government notification held that Madhyama was equivalent to Matriculation. The State Government thereafter issued a notification on 5.1.2009 making statutory amendment to the Rules regulating the appointment to incorporate Madhyama as an equivalent qualification retrospectively 2 from 31.01.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order removing him from service dated 20.8.2009 does not made any allegations of any illegality or impropriety in his selection or his ineligibility for selection. He relies upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.13836/09 allowing a similar writ petition. This writ petition is disposed with directions to respondent No.2 to decide the claims of the petitioner in accordance with more than one orders already passed by this Court on this issue, inclusive of C.W.J.C. No.6762/09 and C.W.J.C. No.16312/09, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before respondent No2 after hearing all concerned, including respondent No8. The impugned order dated 20.8.2009 is, therefore, technically directed to be kept in abeyance only without interfering with the status of respondent No.8 till a fresh reasoned and speaking decision by respondent No.2 within the period aforesaid. The writ application stands disposed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)