IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15840 of 2009 1. ABDUL ZALIL S/O SHEIKH SIKANDER ALI R/OVILL KALHAUTIYA, P.S. BARARI, DISTT- KATIHAR 2. MD. ASLAM S/O SEIKH AMANULLAH R/OVILL HASSANGANJ, P.S. DHANDKHORA,DISTT- KATIHAR 3. MD. NIZAMUDDIN S/O LATE S.K. LIYAKAT R/O VILL BINDEWAR, P.S. DANDKHORA, DISTT- KATIHAR 4. MD. SHAMSHUL HAQUE S/O ABUL RAHAM R/OVILL AZAMPUR, P.S. BARARI, DISTT- KATIHAR 5. MD. MUSLIM S/O ABDUL MANNAN R/OVILL HASIMPUR, P.S. BARARI, DISTT- KATIHAR 6. MD. KHURSHID ALAM S/O MD. FIZALUL HAQUE R/OVILL JANERADHAV, P.S. BARARI, DISTT- KATIHAR 7. INAMUL HAQUE S/O MD. FAZLUL HAQUE R/OVILL BABHANI, P.S. PRANPUR, DISTT- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ , RURAL DEVILOPMENT DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR , PATNA 4. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER PURNEA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KATIHAR 6. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER KATIHAR 7. DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER, KATIHAR ----------- 2. 18.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 7072 of 2000 with the prayer for quashing the select list prepared for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sewak. This Court disposed the writ application with a direction to the respondent no. 3, the Director, Panchayati Raj to call for the records of the selection, issue notice to those against whom the petitioner be aggrieved, prepare a revised merit list by following the rules of reservation and roster and then forward the same to the Collector of the District who is 2 the appointing authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that respondent no. 3, contrary to the direction of this Court by the impugned order dated 1.9.2009 has delegated the entire responsibility to the District Magistrate without finalizing the seniority list and hearing the concerned persons in terms of the directions of this Court. Learned counsel for the State invites the attention of the Court to the order impugned to submit that it states that respondent no. 3 having gone through the select list was satisfied that it was not in accordance with law. That was not the direction of this Court to respondent no. 3. The directions of this Court are clear and specific. Respondent no. 3 is not restrained from seeking assistance from any quarter that he may wish. But it has ultimate responsibility to take a final decision for preparation of the seniority list in accordance with law and granting hearing to the aggrieved has to be performed by respondent no. 3 himself under his own pen which responsibility cannot be delegated by him by the District Magistrate or any other. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid clarification. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)