IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7484 of 2011 Rita Kumari W/o Manoranjan Kumar Santoshi, R/o Village- Moglanichak P.S.- Chanarua Distt- Patna----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Panchayat Secretary, Patna 2. The Director Panchayat Raj, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Patna 4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Patna 5. The B.D.O., Dhanarua, Patna 6. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Raj, Koshut, P.S. Dhanarua, Distt- Patna----------------Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 16.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The minimum qualification laid down by the State Government in the matter of appointment of Nayay Mitra in Gram Kutchery of State of Bihar was matriculate. However many a writ applications came to be filed before the High Court with assertion that if some other similar degrees have been recognised by the State of Bihar to be equivalent to matriculate then such persons cannot be denied the benefit of consideration. Judgments came to be rendered, directions were issued based on which modification or notification was issued indicating that degree like Madhyama will also be considered at par with matriculation. Since earlier that amendment was not done in exercise of power under Section 146 of Bihar Panchayati Raj Act 2006, the State Government notified the amendment. Clause 3 indicates that the amended rule will take place with effect from 31.1.2008 showing equivalence for such appointment but appointments made prior to the same will not be covered by this amendment. In other words the requirement of matriculation for appointment made prior to 31.1.2008 remained. It is this fact which stands clarified by the circular 2 dated 5.7.2010 issued by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar which is annexure-5 to the writ application. Since petitioner is an appointee of 2007 ( i.e. 5.10.2007) on the basis of educational qualification of Madhyama then her removal order issued by the respondents in the light of above cannot be held to be illegal, arbitrary or contrary to the law on this count. In view of above, no interference therefore is required with the order of removal. However the order of removal will not come in the way of the petitioner for future consideration when petitioner claims specially in view of the amended rule. This writ application is dismissed with the observation as above. RPS ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)