IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.939 of 2009 1. SANTOSH KUMAR SON OF SRI SURESH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-CHADDHA, P.O. BABU BIGHA, UNDER GRAM PANCHAYAT- CHAIDHA(BANNI), P.S. AND BLOCK-GAGARI. 2. ARBIND KUMAR SINGH S/O DIPALI PD. SINGH, R/O VILLAGE+P.O. AND GRAM PANCHAYAT-MADIPUR, P.S. AND BLOCK- PARBATTA. 3. MANIKANT NIRALA, S/O LATE BAIKU MANDAL, R/O VILLAGE-BABU CHAKALA, P.O.MAHADIPUR UNDER GRAM PANCHAYAT, SIR CHALALA, P.S. AND BLOCK-GOJARI. 4. MUNESHWAR THAKUR, S/O PARU THAKUR, R/O VILL-NAYAGAWAN. P.O.JARAWANPUR, UNDER GRAM PANCHAYAT AT NAYAGAWAN-2 P.S.AND BLOCK-PARBATTA. 5. NIRANJAN KUMAR S/O GRIDHARI RAI, R/O VILL-AND GRAM PANCHAYAT-JHHKATI, P.S.AND BLOCK-GOGRI. 6. NARESH PD. SINGH S/O RAI BAHADUR SINGH, R/O VILL-P.O. AND UNDER GRAM PANCHAYAT-CHATER (SANTOSH) P.S. AND BLOCK-ALAUNI. 7. PERMANAND MANDAL S/O LATE BIRANCHI MANDAL, R/0 VILL-P.O. AND GRAM PANCHAYAT-MATHARA, P.S.AND BLOCK-KHAGARIA. 8. JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, S/O MAHAVIR TIWARI, R/O GRAM PANCHYAT-JHANJARA, P.S. AND BLOCK-PARBATTA. 9. DIGAMBAR PRASAD SINGH, S/O BHUBNESHWAR PD. SINGH, R/O GRAM PANCHAYAT-SONDEHA, P.S. AND BLOCK- GOGARI. 10. PRAPHUL KUMAR, S/O BHARAT PRASAD, R/O GRAM PANCHAYAT-DHUTAULI (BHALPA) P.S. AND BLOCK-CHAUTHAM. 11. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, S/O DEV NARAYAN YADAV, R/O GRAM PANCHAYAT- 2 03/ 05-Jan-2011 BARHARA(GOPALPUR) P.S.AND BLOCK GOGRI. 12. BIGENDRA KR. YADAV, S/O JAI NANDAN PD. YADAV, R/O GRAM PANCHAYAT, MALI, P.S. AND BLOCK- BELDOR. 13. MILITARY RAI, S/O ANAND RAI, R/O GRAM SUNOKHAR, P.S. & BLOCK-ALAULI. ALL PETITIONERS BELONG TO KHAGARIA....…………………….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. K.C. SHAHA, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. BAIDHANATH PRASAD, DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. ABHAY KUMAR SINGH, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KHAGARIA. 5. PRABHAT SHARMA, THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER, KHAGARIA………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The writ Court had expected that the authorities shall consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sewak. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the order dated 12.08.2010 whereby petitioners’ claim has been rejected does not amount to proper consideration and the order is not in accordance with 3 law. A perusal of the order shows that the claims of the petitioners have been considered and hence it would not be proper to take recourse to proceeding for contempt against the respondent. Hence, this proceeding is dropped. Liberty is granted to the petitioners that if they are dissatisfied with the order dated 12.08.2010 which is Annexure-B/2 to the show-cause filed on behalf of the O.P. Nos. 4 and 5, then they would be at liberty to challenge that order through an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)