IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10489 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Chotu Kumar S/O Shree Rakesh Kumar R/O Vill Saura, P.S.Bajpatti, Distt-Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate -Cum-Collector Sitamarhi 3. The District Panchayati Raj Officer Sitamarhi 4. The Block Development Officer Bajpatti, Distt-Sitamarhi 5. The Nodal Officer Bajpatti Block, Distt-Sitamarhi 6. The Sarpanch Madhopur Gram Panchayat Under Bajpatti Block, Distt- Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc2) ====================================================== 3 03-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The claim in the application is for appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery of Madhopur Panchayat under Bajpatti Block of District- Sitamarhi under the Bihar Gram Kutchery Secretary (Employment, Service Conditions and Duties ) Rules, 2007. The recruitment in question relates to the year- 2007. The contention is that the petitioner held the qualification of Madhyama which is equivalent to Matriculation and therefore has a right to be considered for appointment in preference to even Matriculates if he has higher marks than the latter. Strong reliance is placed on Patna High Court CWJC No.10489 of 2010 (3) dt.03-11-2011 2 the decision of this Court in 2008 (4) P.L.J.R. 125 Santosh Kumar Jha vs. State of Bihar) holding that Madhyama was equivalent to Matriculation in context of claims for appointment as Secretary, Gram Kutchery and which is stated to have been affirmed by a Division Bench. Further reliance is placed on an order dated 2.3.2009 issued by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, to act in accordance with the aforesaid judgments. The issue of such appointments has vexed this Court time and again. It is apparent that when the aforesaid judgments were delivered no statutory provisions were placed before the Court from the Rules regulating the appointment. Subsequently more than one order of the Court has noticed that the Rules stipulated Matriculation as the only qualification for appointment. The legislative rules came to be amended in January, 2009 with effect from 31.1.2008 incorporating Madhyama as an eligible qualification for appointment along with Matriculation. Therefore, prior to the amendment of the Rules on 31.1.2008 a person holding qualification of Madhyama may be entitled to a declaration of equivalence with Matriculation but was certainly not entitled to be considered for appointment under the Rules, contrary to the statutory requirements. Even if such an application was entertained contrary to the Rules, it will not vest a Patna High Court CWJC No.10489 of 2010 (3) dt.03-11-2011 3 cause of action. The Court finds it difficult to grant any relief to the petitioner. Nonetheless, if any fresh advertisement is issued, pursuant to the amendment of the Rules, he now has a claim to be considered for such appointment in accordance with law, if otherwise eligible. The writ application is disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)