IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.61 of 2006 Renu Devi, wife of Shri Awadesh Pandey @ Munna Pandey, resident of village Bara, P.O. Tekaiya Karpi, P.S. Khijar Sarai, District Gaya…………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Welfare Department , Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya. 6. The District Programme Welfare Officer, Gaya. 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Khijar Sarai Block, District- Gaya………………Respondent nos.1 to 7 in the writ. 8. Renu Kumari, wife of Shri Jamendra Kumar Singh, R/o village Bara, P.O. Tekaiya Karpi, P.S. Khijar Sarai, District Gaya. 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Jamuawan, Khijar Sarai, Gaya……………………….. Opposite parties. with C. REV. No.62 of 2006 Children Development Project Officer, Khijarsarai, Block, District Gaya………………………….Respondent no.7-Review petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Welfare Department , Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya. 6. The District Programme Welfare Officer, Gaya. 7. Renu Devi, wife of Shri Awadesh Pandey @ Munna Pandey, resident of village Bara, P.O. Tekaiya Karpi, P.S. Khijarsarai, District Gaya. 8. Renu Kumari, wife of Shri Jamendra Kumar Singh, R/o village Bara, P.O. Tekaiya Karpi, P.S. Khijar Sarai, District Gaya. ………….. Writ petitioners-Opposite parties. ----------- 07/ 06.08.2010 Both petitions have been filed for modification or recall of order dated 07.02.2006 by which a Bench of this court disposed of C.W.J.C. No.14594 of 2004 holding that Aam Sabha had recorded in its proceedings that petitioner was a non-matriculate, although the fact was that the petitioner was a matriculate and the decision of the Aam Sabha was vitiated. It was also held that the records 2 clearly showed that the petitioner’s candidature was not considered by the Aam Sabha which was made to believe by the Child Development Project Officer and the Mukhiya dishonestly claiming that the petitioner was a non-matriculate. In the said circumstances, the selection of respondent no.8 was found to be per se illegal and the matter was remitted back to the Aam Sabha to be presided only by the Block Development Officer when Mukhiya and the Child Development Project Officer will not be there. Furthermore, the Vigilance Department was directed to initiate an appropriate proceeding against the Child Development Project Officer concerned and to take such steps as required to be taken in the facts and circumstances against the Child Development Project Officer. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Bihar was also directed to initiate an appropriate step against the Mukhiya under sub section (12) of Section 5 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act for his conduct in relation to the matter and to take such action as was permissible in accordance with law. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record nor does it find any material either to recall or modify the aforesaid order of this court. Accordingly, both civil review petitions are dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )