IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.967 of 2006 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The State of Bihar, through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director, Panchayat Raj Directorate, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia. 7. The District Magistrate, Katihar. 8. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Katihar. …..Respondent…Appellants. Versus 1. DINESH PRASAD YADAV, son of Sri Chhotelal Yadav, resident of village +P.O. Sikkat, P.S. Barari, District- Katihar. 2. Binod Kumar, son of Sri Jai Narayan Singh, resident of village Jhiktia, Police Station- Korha, District- Katihar. 3. Dev Narayan Yadav, son of Sri Ganauri Yadav, resident of village- Chochala, P.O. Primokam, P.S. Halka, District- Katihar. 4. Ashok Kumar Mandal, son of Sri Ganesh Chandra Mandal, resident of village+ P.O. Nawabganj, P.S. Manihari, District- Katihar. 5. Anil Kumar Sah, son of Sri Mahabir Prasad Sah, resident of village + P.O. Rajwara, P.S. Korha, District Katihar. 6. Devendra Kumar, son of Mahendra Prasad Bhagat, resident of village- Umali, P.O. Pirmokam, P.S. Fhalka, District Katihar. ….Petitioners…Respondents. 7. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna. 8. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna. …Respondent/Performa Respondents. ----------- 06- 2.12.2010 Heard Mr. S.K. Ghose, learned Additional Advocate General No.2 for the appellants, and Mr. Rajesh 2 Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. The State of Bihar in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 10.8.2005, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in C.W.J.C. No.5603 of 2004 (Dinesh Prasad Yadav & 5 others vs. The State of Bihar and others), whereby the concerned authorities have been directed to consider the cases of the writ petitioners, who were Dalpatis, for their appointment to the post of Panchayat Sewak. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The issue is now covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (S.K. Katriar, J.), was a party, in the State of Bihar and others Vs. Susbhash Chandra Shukla and others, 2009(4) P.L.J.R. 569. The order of the learned Single Judge in the present proceeding is inconsistent with the judgment of the Division Bench. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is hereby replaced by the directions of the Division Bench in the State of Bihar vs. Subhash Chandra Shukla (supra). 3 3. In the result, this appeal is allowed, and the writ petition is dismissed. The present writ petition shall be governed by the judgment of the Division Bench in the State of Bihar vs. Subhash Chandra Shukla (supra). In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (S K Katriar, J.) (S.P. Singh, J.) S.K.Pathak/