IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13221 of 2011 1. Reena Kumari @ Rina Kumari W/O Narendra Singh R/O Vill. Semaraon, P.S. - Charpokhari, Distt. Bhojpur 2. Luv Kush Sah S/O Ramjee Sah R/O Vill. Betadi, P.S. Charpokhari, Distt. Bhojpur Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Govt. Of Bihar R/O Patna. 3. The District Magistrare, Bhojpur R/O Ara. 4. The Director, Panchayat Raj, Govt. of Bihar. 5. The District Panchayat Raj Officer R/O Bhojpur at Ara. 6. The Block Development Officer, Charpokhari R/O Bhojpur at Ara. 7. The Nodal Officer, Charpokhari Block R/O Bhojpur at Ara. 8. The Sarpanch, Semaraon Panchayat R/O P.S. Charpokhari, Bhojpur at Ara. 9. The Sarpanch, Majhiaon Panchayat R/O P.S. Charpokhari, Bhojpur at Ara. 10. Uma Kumari W/O Arvind Kumar Verma R/O Vill. Semaroan, P.S. Charpokhari, Distt. Bhojpur at Ara. 11. Madan Murari Pathak S/O Jai Siya Ram Pathak R/O Vill. Pandey Dihari, P.S. Charpokhari, Distt. Bhojpur at Ara. ----------- 02. 13.10.2011 Whatever be the background under which the two petitioners came to be appointed earlier on the post of Gram Kutchery Sachiv, the fact is that they are now hit by yet another judicial pronouncement made by the learned single Judge on 16.3.2010, a copy thereof is Annexure-10 to the present writ application. Based on the decision a Government order No.96 dated 5.7.2010 was issued wherein for the first time an amendment was sought to be brought about in the rules relating to appointment of Nyay Sachiv, in the sense that prior to the judgment the basic eligibility in terms of educational qualification was matriculation and not any other qualification akin to matriculation. However, the Court decided that since 2 Madhyama is recognized as akin to Matriculation, a person cannot be disqualified from consideration on the said post. The changes however were brought about subsequent to the judicial order and effective a particular date. Since the appointment of the petitioners was prior to the cut off date, obviously these two petitioners are ineligible for appointment and therefore, the appointment or the order which has been passed in Annexure-1, which is impugned, will have to be read in the light of the said background. Since the petitioners are appointees of the year 2007 where the minimum qualification was matriculation and not any other education qualification at par with matriculation, they have to make way for the newly appointed persons and to that extent Annexure-1 does not require any interference. Writ is dismissed being devoid of merit. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)