Judgment 1. On the matter being called, no one has appeared on either side whether for the appellant or the respondents. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the decision dated 15.7.1992 on C.W.J.C. No. 3782/83 (Ram Bali Mandal V/s. The State of Bihar & Others). 3. The appointment of one Shankar Yadav, respondent no. 5 in the writ petition was challenged. The appointment was as Dalpatti. 4. The issue before learned judge as presented in the writ petition was whether notice of the meeting was sufficiently given to the members of the Executive Committee so as to invest the District Panchayat Officer to take a decision at the meeting on the appointment of respondent no. 5, Shankar Yadav as Dalpatti. 5. After the pleadings in the writ petition have been examined the learned judge found from the record that one of the members had not even received notice of the two meetings. The absence was because of lack of service of notice itself. Thus the learned judge was of the opinion that deliberations of the meetings, if held, were vitiated. Consequently, the learned judge was of the opinion that the District Panchayat Officer could not have taken a decision for the appointment of respondent no. 5, Shankar Yadav, as Dalpatti of a Gram Panchayat. 6. The Court does not find any error in the decision on the writ petition. The appeal is, accrodingly dismissed.