High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Maya Devi vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 16 August, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Maya Devi vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 16 August, 2010
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       CWJC No.2291 of 2010
         1. MAYA DEVI D/O RAMASHISH SINGH AND W/O NAGENDRA
         SINGH R/O VILL.- BIHTA, P.S.- HASPURA, DISTT.- AURANGABAD
                               Versus
         1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
         2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD
         3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, AURANGABAD
         4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HASPURA BLOCK,
         DISTT.- AURANGABAD
         5. PUNAM DEVI W/O SUNIL SINGH SARPANCH, GRAM
         PANCHAYAT JAITPUR WITHIN HASPURA BLOCK, P.S.- HASPURA,
         DISTT.- AURANGABAD, RESIDING AT VILL.- BIHTA, P.S.-
         HASPURA, DISTT.- AURANGABAD
         6. BRIJ KISHORE PRASAD S/O RAMDHIR PRASAD R/O VILL.-
         MAHUARH, P.S.- HASPURA, DISTT.- AURANGABAD
                             -----------

2. 16.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

the State.

The petitioner was an applicant for the post of

Secretary, Gram Kachahari possessing qualification of

“Madhyama” and placed at serial no.2 of the panel. The

person at serial no. 1 was not appointed having found to

be possessing a forged certificate. Respondent no. 6 at

serial no. 3 of the panel possessing matriculation

qualification was appointed. Subsequently “Madhyama”

was held to be equivalent to Matriculation for such

appointment. The petitioner stakes her claim for

appointment in that light.

The writ petition does not state date of

appointment of respondent no. 6. The rules regulating

appointment have been notified on 5.1.2009 amending

with retrospective effect from 31.1.2008 making
2

“Madhyama” eligible. The legislature has not given it

retrospective effect, for appointment prior to 31.1.2008.

This Court has already held that the legislative

amendment cannot be given further retrospective effect

by an executive order.

Leave is sought to file a representation before

the concerned respondents. While considering such

representation, this Court expects the concerned

respondents to keep the aforesaid discussion in mind in

so far as the appointment of respondent no. 6 is

concerned and to give him notice and hear him before

proceeding in the matter, if so considered necessary.

The application stands disposed.

P. Kumar                                             ( Navin Sinha, J.)