CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10796 OF 2000 **** In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ***** Rabindra Nath Prasad, son of Sri Algu Prasad, resident of Village- Alapur, Post Office- Garh Manjah, Under Gram Panchayat- Ahiraulia, Block- Manjha, District- Gopalganj. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Directorate of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gopalganj. 5. The District Panchayati Raj Officer,Gopalganj. 6. Ram Prasad Yadav, son of Sri Lodhi Prasad Yadav, resident of Gram Panchayat-Dharam Parsa, Police Station and Block- Manjha, at present posted/working on the post of Panchayat Sewak posted in Block within the district of Gopalganj. .... Respondents. ***** For the Petitioners: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Braj Kishore Pd Sinha, Government Pleader No.3. Mr. Suryakant Kumar, A.C. to G.P.3. ***** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ***** S K Katriar, J. The petitioner claims to be a Dalpati and seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for appointment as Panchayat Sewak/Panchayat Secretary. It appears 2 that he had earlier approached this Court by preferring C.W.J.C. No.11078 of 1996 (Rabindra Nath Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and others), which was disposed of by order dated 4.12.1996, whereby it was in substance directed that the petitioner’s case be considered for such appointment. 2. The petitioner’s case appears to be covered by paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (S K Katriar, J.) was a party, in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Subhash Chandra Shukla and others, [2009 (4) PLJR 569], and is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “15. We, however, note the submission of the learned Advocate General that the State Government is promise-bound to appoint 531 Panchayat Secretaries from amongst Dalpatis for the reason that the same is being done in compliance of the orders of the Court which have attained finality. The orders of the learned Single Judges in those writ petitions have not been brought to our notice, let alone those being the subject matter of the present appeal. We are in no position to appreciate the circumstances which persuaded the courts to pass orders to the effect that those petitioners, who were working as Dalpatis, shall be considered for appointment/promotion as Panchayat Sewaks. It is a possible situation, only to illustrate it in a hypothetical manner, that the State Government may have taken the decision to appoint Panchayat Sewak/Panchayat Secretary from 3 amongst Dalpatis to meet the emergent situation on account of the vast number of vacant posts of Panchayat Sewak/Secretary in the State of Bihar.” “16. In view of the mandate of the Constitution, the Act has to be effectively implemented without any loss of time. A workable system had to be put in place. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that the figure of 531 has been arrived because those Dalpatis had approached this court by way of various writ petition and orders have been passed in their favour. Let it be made clear that such an action may not necessarily have our stamp of approval, but we permit the State Government to so appoint/promote them because the various orders of this court have attained finality. We wish to further clarify that only those Dalpatis, not exceeding 531 persons, would be appointed/promoted to the post of Panchayat Sewak/Secretary in different Panchayats of the State whose names have been approved by the Staff Selection Commission. Those of the present writ petitioners who had approached this court earlier, orders have been passed in their favour, and are within 531 Dalpatis, shall be similarly treated. We further clarify that in so far as appointment/promotion of 531 candidates is concerned, the State Government shall not keep in mind the distinction, if any, between Gram Panchayat Sewak/Panchayat Secretary. The question whether or not the State Government wishes to make a distinction between the two posts will depend on the Rules that it is required to frame.” (Emphasis added) 3. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the direction of this Court contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment in the State 4 of Bihar Vs. Subhash Chandra Shukla (supra) read with the aforesaid order dated 4.12.1996, in CWJC No.11078 of 1996. (S K Katriar, J.) Kishore K. Mandal, J. I agree. (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 7th day of December, 2009. S.K.Pathak/(N.A.F.R.)