IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18741 of 2011 1. Sanjay Kumar Singh S/O Sri Ram Chandra Singh R/O Village Ramgarh, P.O.- Mamrejpur, P.S. - Chenari, District - Rohtas Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas, Sasaram 6. The Block Development Officer, Chenari 7. The Mukhiya, Malhipur Gram Panchayat , Village + P.O. - Malhipur, District - Rohtas 8. The Panchayat Sachiv, Malhipur Gram Panchayat, Village + P.O.- Malhipur, District - Rohtas ---------------------------------- 2. 24.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to S.C.-8 for the respondents No. 1 to 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Memo No. 2699 dated 29.12.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas by which the complaint made by the petitioner has not been disposed off but no relief has been given to him only on the ground that now a new Rule is in force by which the petitioner cannot be appointed to the post of Panchayat Shikshak. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Rules came into effect from 01.07.2006 and the petitioner is aggrieved by an action much prior to that and in fact he had also approached this Court in January, 2006 itself in C.W.J.C. No. 1486 of 2006 in which this Court had 2 remanded the matter to the District Magistrate for consideration. He submits that in that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the circumstances which have changed due to efflux of time in the intervening period and states that his case is covered by the principle of lis pendens and his case should not have been defeated merely because pendency of proceedings initiated by him took time to reach to their conclusion. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner this Court finds force in the contentions and submissions made by him. The petitioner cannot be penalized or made to suffer because the proceeding initiated by him, within time, continued for a long period during which certain amendments and changes have come in the Rules governing such appointment. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order contained in Memo No. 2699 dated 29.12.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas is set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned District Magistrate to consider the matter afresh on merits and decide the issue with regard to the contentions of the petitioner including the fact whether he was entitled for such 3 employment. If he is found entitled to such employment the same shall be considered with reference to the point of time when the petitioner has raised such grievance. The natural consequences thereafter shall follow in the case of the petitioner. The said District Magistrate shall dispose off the matter within three months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order upon him after hearing all the parties concerned. With the aforementioned directions, the writ petition stands disposed off. Saif/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)