IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18123 of 2009 1. BINOD KUMAR YADAV S/O BANWARI RAI R/O LADHPUR, P.O. GURUKUL MEHIAN P.S.- GARKHA, DISTT.- SARAN (CHAPRA) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF PANCHAYATI RAJ GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPTT. OF PANCHAYATI RAJ GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CHAPRA 5. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER, CHAPRA 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SADAR, CHAPRA 7. THE SARPANCH GRAM KACHAHARI, MAHAMDA, GARKHA, CHAPRA 8. THE PANCHAYATI SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, MAHAMDA GARKHA CHAPRA ----------- 2. 15.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The issue relates to the question of equivalence of ‘Madhyama’ to ‘Matriculate’ for appointment as Secretary, Gram Kachahari. The petitioner on basis of his matriculation qualification claims to have been appointed as such on 28.1.2008. He is aggrieved by certain general direction dated 30.4.2009 by the District Magistrate as reflected more particularly with regard to the petitioner in Annexure-8 to the I.A. No. 2278 of 2010 in consequence of consideration of those passing Madhyama qualification. Having heard counsel for the parties, I.A. No. 2278 of 2010 is allowed and it shall form part of the 2 original pleading. It is submitted that in pursuance of certain orders of this Court holding Madhyama as equivalent to Matriculation, the respondents on 5.1.2009 issued a notification making retrospective legislative amendments to the Rules regulating such appointments with effect from 31.1.2008. The petitioner having been appointed on 28.1.2008 prior to the date from which the legislation has been given retrospective effect, the cut off date i.e., 31.8.2008 cannot be given further retrospective effect by executive orders. It appears that the issue of retrospective effect to legislative amendment by executive orders and whether it be permissible has already been considered by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6762 of 2009 and analogous cases in context of the very same controversy. Any orders for termination of the appointment of the petitioner are therefore directed to be kept in abeyance. The matter is referred to the respondent no. 2, to take an appropriate decision with regard to the petitioner in light of the question involved of retrospective effect to legislative amendments by executive orders and then pass a reasoned and speaking order in like manner as directed in the 3 aforesaid application within like period of three months when the order for termination of the petitioner directed to be kept in abeyance shall merge in the final orders to be passed by him. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)