IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4732 of 2008 Mulayam Singh, son of Deo Nath Prasad, resident of village- Deewan Tok, P.O.- Ratnakar, Block- Raghopur, P.S. Ganga Breeze, District-Vaishali. ……….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director-in-charge, Department of Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali. 4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Vaishali. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer Hajipur Vaishali at Hazipur. 6. The Block Development Officer, Block-Raghopur, District- Vaishali. 7. The Nodal Officer-cum-Panchayat Supervisor, Block-Raghopur, District-Vaishali. 8. The Nayay Panchayat Saraipur through the Sarpanch Block- Raghopur, District-Vaishali. 9. Shambhu Kumar son of Shankar Rai, Resident of village- Saraipur, P.S. Ganga Bridge, District-Vaishali. ----------- 05. 27.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. None appears for respondent no.9, although respondent no. 9 appeared in these proceedings through Vakalatnama dated 22.06.2011. 2. Petitioner was an applicant for appointment on the post of Secretary Gram Kachahari in the Nyay Panchayat Saraipur in Raghopur Block of Vaishali District, which is evident from the chart (merit list) prepared for such appointment under the signature of the Block Development Officer, Raghopur dated 03.08.2007, Annexure-5. It appears petitioner secured 75.57% marks in the Madhyama Examination and was placed at serial no. 1 of the merit list, yet was not appointed as according 2 to the authorities Matriculate is only eligible for such appointment. Later this Court under order dated 31.01.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13905 of 2007, Annexure-6 held that Madhyama is equivalent to Matriculation examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board and those applicants who possess Madhyama qualification are also eligible for appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Kachahari. In the light of the order of the High Court circular was also issued by the Panchayati Raj Department. Highlighting the order of the High Court and the circular issued by the Panchayati Raj Department, petitioner filed representation dated 14.02.2008 addressed to the District Magistrate Vaishali and District Panchayat Raj Officer, Vaishali, copy whereof is contained in Annexure-7 to this application. Supplementing the plea raised in the representation dated 14.02.2008 petitioner has also filed further representation, so submitted counsel for the petitioner but copy of the subsequent representation filed by the petitioner has not been annexed with the writ application. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that neither the representation dated 14.02.2008 3 nor the subsequent representation supplementing the earlier one has been considered and disposed of by the District Magistrate and District Panchayat Raj Officer, Vaishali. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. I direct the petitioner to file yet another representation annexing earlier two representations and copy of this order before the District Magistrate, Vaishali, who shall seek report from the District Panchayat Raj Officer Vaishali and after hearing the petitioner and the respondent no.9 shall pass appropriate order in the matter, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 4. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Devendra ( V.N. Sinha, J.)