IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11281 of 2008 NILU RANI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 18/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This Court does not consider it necessary to issue notice to respondent no.7 at this stage since his interest shall stand adequately protected with nature of the order. The issue relates to the equivalence of the qualification of ‘Madhyama’ to ‘Matriculation’ prescribed under the rules for appointment to the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchury. Respondent no.7 has been appointed on 23.10.2007. Only on 5.1.2009 legislative as the state issued a notification making retrospective amendment in the Rules and that to from 31.1.2008 only accepting ‘Madhyama’ as a valid qualification. These have been the subject matter of adequate consideration by more than one order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6762 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 16312 of 2009 holding that the legislative amendment from 31.1.2008 cannot be given retrospective effect prior to that date by any executive orders and that those who have been appointed before the cut off date form part of a complete transaction whose appointment cannot 2 be interfered with unless there be allegations of ineligibility or impropriety in procedures. Let the respondents consider the representation of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid discussion. It is expected that the representation shall be considered expeditiously. The writ application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)