Anjana Mishra, J.

1. The appellant Kanti Kumari has preferred this intra court appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by a learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 8953 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the challenge placed before the writ petitioner to the termination of her appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery, was cancelled vide letter dated 20.03.2011.

2. The brief facts which led to the filing of this case is that:-

(A) The petitioner having passed the Bihar Madhyama Sanskrit Shiksha Board made an application for the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery which is constituted by the State Government in the exercise of power under Section 94(2), read with Section 146 of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006. The Rules for the same were framed for Gram Kutchery Sachiv Niyojan Seva Shart Evam Kartavya Niyamavali, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').

(B) The petitioner's application was examined by the Block Development Officer who inquired from the District Magistrate regarding the validity of the qualification of Madhyama. The District Magistrate, in turn, inquired from the Director, Panchayati Raj as to whether the candidates who were possessing the Madhyama examination from the Sanskrit Shiksha Board could be considered as matriculate for the purpose of appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery.

(C) The Director, Panchayati Raj vide Letter No. 4808 dated 10.10.2007 clarified that Clause 5(a) of the said Rules provide that only a Matriculate can be considered for the purpose of Secretary, Gram Kutchery.

(D) Thus, the candidature of the appellant/petitioner, though she was placed at serial No. 1 of the panel prepared by the Gram Panchayat for consideration to the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery was rejected on the solitary ground that she was disqualified as she possessed the certificate of Madhyama which cannot be treated at par with matriculation.

(E) This led the appellant/petitioner to file C.W.J.C. No. 15636 of 2007 which was disposed of by an order dated 10.03.2010 wherein it was noted that the issue had already been decided in C.W.J.C. No. 13905 of 2007, holding that the qualification of Madhyama was equivalent to that of Matriculation. As such, the Court disposed of the writ application with a direction to the respondents to dispose of her representation by means of a reasoned order in the light of the judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 13905 of 2007.

(F) In pursuance of the orders filed by the appellant Kanti Kumari, before the competent authority the appointment of Binod Kumar Yadav, respondent No. 7 herein, was disturbed and therefore he preferred a writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 18123 of 2009 (Binod Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) wherein this Court after considering the entire facts and circumstances passed orders in the following terms:-

"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."

3. It is important to indicate here that in another writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6762 of 2009, this Court had declared the law in this regard with reference to the decision in C.W.J.C. No. 13905 of 2007. The said C.W.J.C. No. 13905 of 2007 was preferred by one Santosh Kumar Pandey, similarly aggrieved by denial of appointment for the reason of his Madhyama qualification. This Court on 31.01.2008, relying upon a Government Policy Decision dated 11.01.1999, held that Madhyama was equivalent to matriculation and directed consideration of his case accordingly. Pursuant to the aforementioned pronouncement, the State Legislature made a legislative amendment to Rule 5 of the aforementioned Rules inserting the word "or equivalent" after Matriculation. The amendment