Judgment Shashank Kumar Singh and V.N.Sinha JJ. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.6.97 passed in CWJC no. 645/96 whereby the learned court taking into consideration the fact that the Rules framed under Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 did not survive after the repeal of the Act has quashed the appointment of Respondent no.8/Appellant on the post of Dalpati. 2. The appellant has been appointed as Dalpati by the Executive Committee of Jagarnathpur Grampanchayat (Gaya) on 13.11.95 after the old Act was repealed. The provision of section 27 of the Bihar & Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 is quoted herein below. "Where any enactment is repealed and re-enacted by a Bihar and Orissa Act (or Bihar Act) with or without modification then unless it is otherwise expressely provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, by-laws or form made or issued under the repealed enactment, shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions reenacted, continue in force and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, by-law or form made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted." 3. The learned writ court after taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions came to the conclusion that rules validly made became part of the Repealing Act and survived the repeal of the Act provided it is not inconsistent with the provisions of re-enacted enactment. However, as has been discussed in the aforesaid order after repeal of 1947 Act the provision relating to organization of Village Volunteer Force was not retained but subsequently the same was inserted by section 32A of the Act by which a provision was made to organize a Village Volunteer Force under a Dalpati appointed in the prescribed manner. Under section 26 of the old Act such organization was to be made by the Executive Committee, whereas under new provision such organization and appointment of Dalpati is required to be made as per a procedure, which is yet to be prescribed. Taking this aspect of the matter and judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chief Inspector Mines & ano. vs. Karam Chand Thapar reported in AIR 1961 SC 838 , the court came to the conclusion that as the appointing authority was not competent as such, the appointment could not be sustained. Taking this aspect of the matter and judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chief Inspector Mines & ano. vs. Karam Chand Thapar reported in AIR 1961 SC 838 , the court came to the conclusion that as the appointing authority was not competent as such, the appointment could not be sustained. We are also of the considered opinion as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Dinesh Pd. Singh vs. State of Bihar & others reported in 2002(3) PLJR 147 that the aforesaid appointment cannot be sustained in the eye of law. No infirmity has been shown in the order impugned. 4. In the result, this appeal fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.