IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11322 of 2010 Anil Kumar & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 2. 17.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner questions the legislative amendment made to Section 5 of the Bihar Gram Kutchery Sachiv (Appointment, Service Conditions and Duties) Rules 2007 recognising Madhyama as a equivalent qualification to Matriculation but with effect from 31.1.2008 urging that the fixing of the cut of date is arbitrary. If the legislative amendment has been challenged, the matter should appropriately be referred to the Division Bench which alone has the jurisdiction to decide issues of validity. But the law stands settled that when challenge is laid out to the validity of an Act there must be materials in support thereof in the pleadings. The grounds of invalidity must be spelt out with clarity to enable both the Court and the respondents to appreciate the grounds of challenge. Reference may usefully be made to (2002) 4 SCC 34 and (2004) 12 SCC 673. The writ application does not contain any semblance of a ground to question the validity of a legislative amendment when the presumption otherwise is that all legislative amendment to statute are in accordance with law unless otherwise shown. The Court is not persuaded to refer the matter to a Division Bench. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)