JUDGEMENT S.K.Katriar and Kishore K.Mandal JJ. 1. The petitioner claims to have functioned as Dalpati, seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for appointment as a Panchayat Sewak/ Panchayat Secretary after relaxing the age-bar in view of the position that persons junior to him in the gradation list have been appointed. 2. It is stated in the writ petition that the writ petitioner was selected as a Dalpati. He expected to be considered for appointment as Panchayat Sewak/ Panchayat Secretary. However, before it could materialise, the petitioner crossed the maximum age limit of 40 years. He, therefore, took steps by representing before the concerned authorities to relax the age bar and consider his case for appointment as Panchayat Sewak/Panchayat Secretary. It is further stated in LA. No. 3228 of 2003 that the District Magistrate has forwarded his name to the State Government to relax the age bar and consider his case for appointment enclosing thereto a list of persons junior to him as Dalpatis. He relies on paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 11.8.2009, passed in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. V/s. Subhash Chandra Shukla and Ors., reported in 2009(4) P.L.J.R. 569 , that he should be treated to be amongst the 531 persons. 3. Learned Government Pleader No. 3 has opposed the writ petition. He submits that Dalpatis have been appointed as Panchayat Sewak/Panchayat Secretary under orders of the Court. He next submits that it has been held in the aforesaid judgment that a Dalpati is ineligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Panchayat Sewak/Panchayat Secretary. He also submits that the petitioner is not amongst 531 persons. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The question whether or not a Dalpati can be considered for appointment as Panchayat Sewak/Panchayat Secretary is now concluded by the judgment in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. V/s. Subhash Chandra Shukla (supra) wherein it has been held that, in the scheme of the laws governing Panchayat Raj in Bihar, they cannot be considered for such appointment. The question whether or not a Dalpati can be considered for appointment as Panchayat Sewak/Panchayat Secretary is now concluded by the judgment in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. V/s. Subhash Chandra Shukla (supra) wherein it has been held that, in the scheme of the laws governing Panchayat Raj in Bihar, they cannot be considered for such appointment. However, the State Government conceded, as has been noticed in paragraph 16 of the judgment, that 531 Dalpatis shall be appointed as Panchayat Sewak/ Panchayat Secretary because they have approached this court earlier, orders were passed in their favour which have attained finality. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment. The same are reproduced hereinbclow for the facility of quick reference:- "15. We, however, note the submissions of the learned Advocate General that the State Government is promise-bound to appoint 531 Panchayat Secretaries from amongst Dalpatis for the reason that the same is being done in compliance of the orders of the Court which have attained finality. The orders of the learned Single Judges in those writ petitions have not been brought to our notice, let alone those being the subject matter of the present appeal. We are in no position to appreciate the circumstances which persuaded the courts to pass orders to the effect that those petitioners, who were working as Dalpatis, shall be considered for appointment/promotion as Panchayat Sewaks. It is a possible situation only to illustrate it in a hypothetical manner, that the State Government may have taken the decision to appoint Panchayat Sewak/Panchayat Secretary from amongst Dalpatis to meet the emergent situation on account of the vast number of vacant posts of Panchayat Sewak/ Secretary in the State of Bihar. 16. In view of the mandate of the Constitution, the Act has to be effectively implemented without any loss of time. A workable system had to be put in place. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that the figure of 531 has been arrived because those Dalpatis had approached this court by way of various writ petition and orders have been passed in their favour. A workable system had to be put in place. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that the figure of 531 has been arrived because those Dalpatis had approached this court by way of various writ petition and orders have been passed in their favour. Let it be made clear that such an action may not necessarily have our stamp of approval, but we permit the State Government to so appoint/promote them because the various orders of this court have attained finality. We wish to further clarify that only those Dalpatis, not exceeding 531 persons, would be appointed/promoted to the post of Panchayat Sewak/Secretary in different Panchayats of the State whose names have been approved by the Staff Selection Commission. Those of the present writ petitioners who had approached this court earlier, orders have been passed in their favour, and are within 531 Dalpatis, shall be similarly treated. We further clarify that in so far as appointment/promotion of 531 candidates is concerned, the State Government shall not keep in mind the distinction, if any, between the Gram Panchayat Sewak/Panchayat Secretary. The question whether or not the State Government wishes to make a distinction between the two posts will depend on the Rules that it is required to frame." 5 In so far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner has not been able to produce any order of this Court directing the State Government to consider him for appointment. In that view of the matter, the present case is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. V/s. Subhash Chandra Shukla (supra). It has been made clear in the judgment that appointment of 531 persons were being made because of specific orders of the Court in their favour subject to approval of the Staff Selection Commission. It was made clear that such an action may not have necessarily the stamp of approval of this Court but were being accepted because of the orders of various courts which have attained finality. In that view of the matter, learned Government Pleader is right in his submission that appointment of any allegedly junior Dalpati is because of such orders of the Court, and is not in the least attributable to the volition or discretion of the State Government. 6. In that view of the matter, learned Government Pleader is right in his submission that appointment of any allegedly junior Dalpati is because of such orders of the Court, and is not in the least attributable to the volition or discretion of the State Government. 6. We are very sorry to record that this position became clear as soon as the submissions commenced but the learned counsel for the petitioner has needlessly engaged our attention for an unduly long time in a matter which could have been concluded as soon it was taken up. It is entirely concluded by the judgment in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. V/s. Subhash Chandra Shukla (supra). 7. In the result, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) which the petitioner shall deposit with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna, within a period of four weeks.