IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1761 of 2002 1. Binay Kumar Singh, S/0. Shree Yadunath Prasad Singh, resident of Village – Pour Hussainipur, Post Office – Pour, Via Singhara in the Gram Panchayat Lakminarayanpur ( New Govindpur), Police Station – Tisiauta, Block – Kahua, Disrtict – Vaishali at Hajipur. 2. Ram Naresh Rai, S/0. Pancham Rai, resident of Village – Kalyanpur, P.O.- Kanhauli, under Gram Panchayat – Bishunpur Bejha (New Kanhauli Dhanraj), P.S.- Mahua, Block – Goraul, District – Vaishali at Hajipur. 3. Raj Kishor Prasad, S/0. Saukhi Lal Sah, resident of Village – Maksudpur, P.0.-Nilkanthpur, Gram Panchayat – Chakdado Nilkanthpur (New Rasulpur Mubarak), P.S. & Block – Mahua, District – Vaishali at Hajipur. …………….Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Directorate of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 5. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur-cum-Chairman, District Panchayat Sewak Selection Committee, Vaishali at Hajipur. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Vaishali at Hajipur- cum-Vice Chairman, District Panchayat Sewak Selection Committee, Vaishali at Hajipur. 7. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur-Cum- Member Secretary, District Panchayat Sewak Selection Committee, Vaishali at Hajipur. ………………Respondents ---------- Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy. Counsel for the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC-16. Mr. J.K. Roy, J.C. to SC-16. ----------- 03 18.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. It is not in dispute that in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court, as contained in Annexure-4, the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Panchayat Sewak shall be considered as - 2 - and when government decides to make appointment on the post of Panchayat Sewak. It is also not in dispute that the case of the petitioners for relaxation of age shall also be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an apprehension about decision relating to number of vacancies against which government is likely to make selection for appointment. The number of vacancies is always known to the employer on the basis of post sanctioned and available to be filled up. It is also not in dispute that the employer, for sufficient reason may not fill all the vacancies in one transaction and in case of need extra hands may be appointed by way of temporary arrangement. These are matters not falling for decision in the present case. The right of the petitioners that their cases should be considered as per the Division Bench judgment and as per law is not in dispute. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners at the time of selection/appointment to the post of Panchayat Sewak in the district of Vaishali in accordance with law and the latest policy decision. If the petitioners are not selected/appointed for any wrong reasons then they will be free to pursue their remedy in accordance with law. Trivedi/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)