IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2397 of 1999 VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD SON OF SHRI SANTLAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAMBHARIA KHURD, P.O. KISHUNPUR, P.S. JALALPUR, DISTRICT CHHAPRA, SECTIONAL OFFICER, BELKUNDA GRAM PANCHAYAT, P.S. AND BLOCK JALALPUR, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA. --- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER SARAN AT CHHAPRA. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JALALPUR BAZAR, DISTRICT SARAN CHAPRA. 6. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF BELMUNDA FRAM PANCHAYAT THROUGH ITS MUKHIYA, P.S. AND BLOCK JALALPUR, BAZAR DISTRICT SARAN, CHHAPRA. 7. SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAMHARIAKHURD, P.S. JALALPUR BAZAR, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA. ----------- 8/ 20-04-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.7. No one appears on behalf of the State and no counter affidavit has been filed. This writ application was filed in the year 1999 in respect of a dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.7 for appointment on the post of Dalpati. Mr. Gautam Bose, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after filing of the writ petition and during the pendency of same before this Court, fresh developments have taken place. It may not be necessary for the petitioner to now assail the appointment of respondent no. 7 on the post of Dalpati since he has been promoted to the next higher post of Panchayat Sewak. In that view of the matter, if - 2 - vacancy of the post of Dalpati for which the petitioner claims relief, is now available, the petitioner is desirous for his case to be considered for appointment on the post of Dalpati. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 has no objection to the same to the extent that it may not affect him on the post of Panchayat Sewak. If there is a vacancy of the post of Dalpati, as the petitioner claims, a development which has taken place during the pendency of the writ application pursuant to promotion given to Respondent no.7, and the petitioner otherwise fulfils the requirements for the same, this Court considers it appropriate to observe that his case should be considered in accordance with law. Given the fact that the petitioner fought the matter tenaciously since 1999, the respondents shall be obliged to give him adequate relaxation of age in accordance with rules . In view of the moulded submission made on behalf of the petitioner, there is no occasion for this Court to deal with the impugned order on its merit. Let an appropriate decision may be taken by the respondent- authority preferably within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed off . BTiwary/ ( Navin Sinha, J )