IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.836 of 2008
MD. SAJJAD ALAM, SON OF LATE MD. ZAFIRUDDIN
R/O VILLAGE-DIN NAGAR, BLOCK ISLAM NAGAR
ALIGANJ, DIST-JAMUI...........................PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY
PANCHAYTI RAJ GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA, NAMELY
SRI K.C.JHA.
2. THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYATI RAJ BIHAR, PATNA,
NAMELY SRI MAYANK BARBARE.
3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMUI, NAMELY SRI
PREM SINGH MEENA.
4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER, JAMUI,
DIST-JAMUI, NAMELY, SRI VED PRAKASH
5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ISLAM NAGAR,
ALIGANJ, DISTT-JAMUI, NAMELY, SRI PRABHU
DAS.............CONTEMNOR.............OPPOSITE PARTIES.
-----------
05/ 01-Sep-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned AAG-2 appearing for the State.
2. The order of Division Bench whose
violation is being alleged contains a conditional
direction to the respondents/concerned respondents to
consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on
the post of Panchayat Sevak if in future decision is
taken by the Government for appointment on the post
of Panchayat Sevak. CWJC No. 1936 of 2004 which
concerns this petitioner exclusively was disposed of
with a further direction to the respondent to consider
2
the case of the petitioners for relaxation of age for
appointment on the post Panchayat Sevak if the
Government takes a decision for appointment on the
post of Panchayat Sevak in future.
3. It is the firm stand of the State as
reflected by averment in the show-cause that after the
Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, a new post of
Panchayat Secretary with different responsibilities
and qualification was created and it requires to be
filled up by the State Government and hence there
was no scope to continue with the past system of
selecting qualified Dalpati for the post of Panchayat
Sevak.
4. A reliance has been placed upon a recent
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
State of Bihar V. Subhash Chandra Shukla reported
in (2009) 4 PLJR 569 to highlight the fact that the
Division Bench accepted the aforesaid submission
and held that after the 1993 Act a Dalpati cannot as a
matter of right be considered for appointment as
Panchayat Secretary. Paragraph-15 of that judgment
was also placed before us in support of the stand of
3
the State Government that it was under compulsion to
appoint 531 persons as Panchayat Secretaries from
amongst Dalpatis on account of some earlier Court
decisions having attained finality.
5. Before us, in the present case the State
has taken a firm stand that petitioner’s case is not
covered by any earlier decision of this Court which
has attained finality and hence in his case the stand of
the Government is that his claim cannot be considered
for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sevak
because beyond persons required to be accommodated
on account of Court’s orders which have attained
finality, the State Government has taken a clear
decision not to make any further such appointments
from Dalpatis to the post of Panchayat Secretary.
6. The requirement to consider relaxation
of age would have arisen only if there was a decision
for making any further appointment from the post of
Panchayat Sevak/Panchayat Secretary.
7. In the facts of the case, we find no good
ground to take action against the opposite parties
under contempt jurisdiction. This contempt
4
application is, therefore, dismissed.
( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)
perwez