IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16403 of 2009 1. RANJANA DEVI W/O AWANI KUMAR VILL- REGANIYABAG, P.O. DHOBIYAKALAPUR, P.S. NAUBATPUR, DISTT. PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATNA 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK NAUBATPUR, DISTT. PATNA 6. MUKHIYA NAUDIHA GRAM PANCHAYAT, BLOCK NAUBATPUR, DISTT. PATNA ----------- 2. 8.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is urged that the petitioner holds the qualification of ‘Madhyama’ and figured in the merit list for appointment on the post of Sachiv, Gram Kachhari. This Court has already held that the aforesaid qualification was equivalent to matriculate in view of the policy decision of the State Government itself in the year 1999 to that effect and, therefore, the petitioner was clearly eligible for consideration and has been wrongly denied the same. The respondents submits that in pursuance of certain decisions of this Court, by a policy decision dated 5.1.2009, certain legislative amendments have been made in the rules regulating the appointment with retrospective effect from 31.1.2008. If the person had represented before that date on the aforesaid ground, he/she has to be considered. There is no pleading in the writ application that the petitioner 2 has represented prior to that date. Counsel for the State next points out that this Court has already held that those who came to be appointed prior to the policy decision being taken in January, 2009 and there were no illegalities in their appointment, form a class by themselves of a valid appointment and a completed transaction and perhaps the respondent no. 8 falls in that category. These matters have been considered in detail in C.W.J.C. No. 16312 of 2009. The writ application is disposed with direction to the respondent to examine the claim of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid discussion and orders, within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)