IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4256 of 2010 1. URMILA DEVI W/O LAL BABU RAI R/O VILL.- NAGWAN, PANCHAYAT- BHIKHAMPUR, P.S. AND BLOCK- BHAGWAN, DISTT.- SIWAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SIWAN 5. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER SIWAN 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BHAGWANPUR HAT, SIWAN 7. THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER BHAGWANPUR HAT, SIWAN 8. THE SARPANCH, PANCHAYAT RAJ BHIKAMPUR BLOCK- BHAGWANPUR HAT, SIWAN 9. NITU SINGH W/O SANJAY PRASAD R/O VILL.- ERARI NAGWA, P.S. AND BLOCK- BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTT.- SIWAN ----------- 2. 5.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner applied for appointment as a Secretary, Gram Kachahary on 24.8.2007 based on qualification of Madhyama. It is very fairly acknowledged that Rule 5 as it then stood did not recognize Madhyama as an eligibility qualification which was confined to Matriculation. Learned counsel for the petitioner then also fairly acknowledged that respondent no. 9 was issued an appointment letter prior to 31.1.2008 and therefore she is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1791 of 2010 and analogous cases dated 2 30.8.2010 holding at page-5 as follows:- “In view of the saving clause contained in the amendment notified on 5.1.2009, the appointment of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 5274/10 and 594/10 having been made much prior to 31.1.2008 stands saved by the amendment itself. Insofar as the appointment of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1791/10 is concerned, the appointment letter having been issued on 29.1.2008 and she having joined within time granted for such appointment, the same dates back to 29.1.2008 and any joining on 31.1.2008 by her is clearly fortuitous and does not put her in a category different from the other two petitioners. This Court therefore holds that the ouster of the petitioners to accommodate the private respondents cannot be sustained in law. The legislative amendment has to be given its true and legal effect only from 31.1.2008. There can be no deemed retrospective effect to a legislative amendment by an executive order.” In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this application except like observations as contained therein with regard to the private respondents. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)