IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6560 of 2010 URMILA SINGH, W/O AMRESH KUMAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-SINGHARA (EAST), P.O.-SINGHARA, P.S.- MAHUA, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, VAISHALI, AT HAZIPUR. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MAHUA, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. 5. THE SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, SINGHARA (NORTH), DISTRICT-VAISHALI. 6. SMT. SANJU DEVI, W/O ASHOK SAH, R/O VILLAGE-SINGHARA (NORTH), P.S.-MAHUA, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 05.01.2011 Grievance of the petitioner is that though no order has been served on her, but her engagement as Gram Kutchhery Sachiv has been cancelled and she has been stopped from performing her duties. From Annexure-2, it appears that some enquiry was held and the Block Development Officer submitted the report to the District Panchayat Raj Officer on 17.3.2010. It appears that the petitioner also moved the Panchayat Raj Officer directly through representation, as contained in Annexure-5. Therefore, it is appropriate that the District Panchayat Raj Officer should look into the matter and get necessary enquiry 2 held and ask for report with regard to engagement of the petitioner and her functioning and 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. While considering the representation of the petitioner the District Panchayat Raj Officer shall also take into account the Rules by which Madhyama examination has been declared as equivalent to Matriculation for the purposes of appointment of Gram Kutchhery Sachiv and the stipulation made in the Rules that the amendment shall not affect the appointments made earlier. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)