IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2435 of 2010 1. SHARMILA DEVI W/O BINOD KUMAR DAS R/O VILL- BANKAT, INARWA BHAR, P.S- PAHARPUR, DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR 3. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. DIRECTOR DEAPRTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PAHARPUR, EAST CHAMPARAN 7. SARPANCH, GRAM KACHAHRI RAJ, INARWABHAR, EAST CHAMPARAN 8. PANCHAYAT SACHIV GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, INARWABHAR, EAST CHAMPARAN 9. RAJESHWAR SAH S/O LATE BANSHI SAH R/O VILL- BANKAT, P.S- PAHARPUR, DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN ----------- 2. 17.08.2010 Learned Counsel is permitted to correct the typographical mistake in the name of respondent no. 9 in the cause title. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. It is submitted that the petitioner and private respondent no. 9 were applicants for the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery, Inarwabhar under Paharpur block in the district of East Champaran. The post was reserved for a woman candidate of the reserved category only. The petitioner belongs to most backward class category and she was eligible to be appointed. She was denied appointment only on the ground that her qualification of Madhyama was not considered equivalent to Matriculation, the qualification specified in the advertisement. In absence of any other eligible candidate respondent no. 9 came to be appointed. In view of the subsequent legislative amendment with effect from 31.1.2008 that Madhyama was equivalent to Matriculation for appointment, the petitioner deserves her case to be considered. Counsel for the State rightly points out that if no candidate of the reserved category was available, as is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, the respondents committed no error in appointing respondent no. 9 who is acknowledged to have fulfilled conditions of eligibility/qualifications. If respondent no. 9 was appointed prior to 31.1.2008, which is not denied by the petitioner, the appointment if valid on the date it was made cannot become invalid by subsequent legislative amendment which in any event has not been given retrospective effect. This Court therefore finds it difficult to issue any mandamus for appointment of the petitioner but disposes the application with the observation that if a vacancy is available the petitioner may be considered in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)