IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11129 of 2011 Sanju Devi WIFE OF ASHOK SAH RESIDENT OF RAM RAY, SINGHARA (NORTH), P.S. MAHUA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, AT HAJIPUR. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MAHUA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. 5. THE SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, SINGHARA (NORTH), DISTRICT VAISHALI. 6. URMILA SINGH WIFE OF AMRESH KUMAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SINGHARA (EAST), P.OI. SINGHARA, P.S. MAHUA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. ---------------------------------- 2 16/09/2011 Annexure-10 is the order which has been passed by the Block Development Officer, Mahua in the district of Vaishali. This order is supposed to have been passed in light of the earlier direction issued by the Court in the writ application filed by Urmila Singh which was C.W.J.C. No. 6560 of 2010. Annexure-8 is the order annexed with the writ application on this aspect. The short facts which are required to be taken note of in the present writ application and the dispute raised by the petitioner is as under: - 2 - The exercise was carried out at the Gram Panchayat to appoint persons eligible on the post of Secretary Gram Kutchery. Annexure-1 is supposed to be the merit list drawn up in which the name of the present petitioner figured at serial no. 1. According to her, she had highest mark and Urmila Singh’s name figured at serial no. 2. Despite such a position, it was Urmila Singh who came to be appointed on the post, not the petitioner. Petitioner raised certain hue and cry and the authorities decided to undo the so called illegality by offering her an appointment letter in terms of annexure-6 which is dated 15.12.2009. Petitioner gave her joining as well on the same date in terms of annexure-7. The matter did not rest on that because Urmila Singh decided to go before the High Court and the writ application was disposed of with a direction upon the authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner taking into account the rules by which Madhyama examination was declared equivalent to Matriculation for the purpose of appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery. It is in this background that annexure-10 has - 3 - come to be issued. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this order has been passed without any application of mind in teeth of annexure-8, the earlier order of the High Court, and the order is per se illegal. With due respect to the learned counsel representing the petitioner, none of the assertions or contentions have legal legs to stand and the decision rendered by the authorities in the impugned order contained in annexure-10 is in accordance with law as it is in existence till today. At the point of time when the necessary Rules for appointment of Gram Kutchery Secretary was notified by the State Government, the minimum educational qualification laid down therein was Matriculation. When selection was initially made Urmila Singh came to be appointed on 3.1.2008, even though name of the petitioner figured at serial no. 1 because she did not have necessary eligibility to be appointed as she was a Madhyama and not matriculate which, at best, can be termed to be equivalent to matriculation but not matriculation. - 4 - A series of writ applications came to be filed before the High Court challenging the educational qualification as well as non consideration of other equivalent degrees akin to matriculation on the ground that they cannot be disqualified if by notifications issued by the State government with regard to the appointments and other benefits such equivalent preference have been given indulgence and treated at par. The High Court in various writ applications held that Madhyama can be treated equivalent to matriculation and a person possessing degree of Madhyama will not incur disqualification from consideration of such appointment. In this context the Principal Secretary, Panchyati Raj issued notification no. 53 dated 06.01.2009. This notification was to implement the directives of the High Court and the corresponding amendment which was to be brought under the Rules relating to the Bihar Gram Kutchery Sachiv (Noyojan, Sevasharta Evam Kartavya) Niyamawali, 2007, reference specially is to be made to rule 5(ka)(ii). This notification or amendment was notified on 05.01.2009. However, the notification itself said that it - 5 - will co-relate to the date of decision of the High Court which was said to be 31.01.2008. In other words the amended Rules would bring into its ambit all those persons having Madhyama degree to be eligible for consideration for appointment on the post. The question now raised is whether it can happen to the transaction already completed prior to that date? Obvious answer is that appointments made prior to the notified date and the effective date of the amendment will not be hit by such an amendment because Urmila Singh of this case was rightly appointed on 3.1.2008 and the amendment became effective from 31.01.2008. If the petitioner was not appointed in the background that she had a Madhyama degree on that date, she will acquire right for consideration subsequently and not retrospectively when retrospectivity has not been given in the notification by the State Government. If annexure-10 is right in light of what has been recorded in the earlier part of the order, then the order passed by the learned Single Judge contained in annexure-8 has to be read in consonance with the Rule - 6 - which is or was in existence. Conclusion, therefore, is that the petitioner does not have a right for appointment on the post relating to the transaction where the initial selection was made in which Urmila Singh was appointed on the post on 3.1.2008 by the Panchayat. Any effort of the petitioner to step into the shoes or the post of Urmila Singh does not have the sanction of law. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)