IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2232 of 2010 1. SINDHU SINHA W/O SRI AJAY KUMAR SINHA R/O VILL.- NAMIDIH,P.O. GHATARO, P.S.- LALGANJ, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR PRESENTLY WORKING AS GRAM KACHAHARI SECRETARY OF GRAM KACHAHARI GHATARO CHATURBHUJ, BLOCK- LALGANJ, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY null PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECOR PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 5. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER VAISHALI, DISTT.- VAISHALI 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LALGANJ, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 7. THE SURPUNCH GRAM KACHAHARI, GHATARO CHATURBHUJ, BLOCK- LALGANJ, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR ---------- 2. 16.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The claim in the writ application is for a direction to pay salary on the post of Secretary Gram Kachahari from the date of joining i.e., 14.8.2009. It is submitted that the petitioner holding the qualification of Madhyama was at serial no. 1 of the panel. However, appointment was granted to the person at serial no. 3 who was a Matriculate. The petitioner has been appointed subsequently in view of the fact that Madhyama was held to be equivalent to Matriculation for appointment as Secretary, Gram Kachahari. Counsel for the State points out that the rules 2 regulating the appointment have been amended on 5.1.2009 with retrospective effect from 31.1.2008. There is no statement in the writ application as to the date on which the person at Serial no. 3 was appointed. If the candidate was appointed before 31.1.2008, the candidate may have itself questioned the annulment of the appointment to accommodate the petitioner. All these are relevant issues. Additionally, the question also arises if the petitioner was discharging duties as after 14.8.2009. To this Court, these are all issues which require a factual enquiry. The petitioner has not even impleaded the person appointed as a party respondent. The writ application is disposed with the observation that if the petitioner represents before the Director, Panchayati Raj Department, respondent no. 3, he is required to examine all issues with regard to appointment of the petitioner vis-à-vis the annulment of the earlier appointed candidate in light of more than one order of this Court, and the factual premise of discharge of duties by the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This Court leaves it to the wisdom of the Director, Panchayati Raj for the need to hear the previous incumbent so appointed if the person be 3 prejudiced by any order to be passed on the representation of the petitioner. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed in any manner as a direction/observation with regard to the appointment/legality of the person at serial no. 3 of the panel, contrary to law. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)