ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of direction upon the State-respondent to regularize the petitioner as Dalpati since he is continuously working from the date of initial appointment i.e., w.e.f. 10.04.1996 and to consider his case for promotion to the post of Gram Rakshadal. 2. The petitioner’s grievance is that he has been appointed as Dalpati in the decision taken in a meeting of which was held on 20.04.1996 and thereafter he has been appointed in place of his father w.e.f. 26.05.1996 and since then, he is working on the said post. The petitioner claims that his service has also been confirmed as Dalpati. It is a further case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 17.01.2009, the Deputy Director of Panchayat Raj, Jharkhand has considered the case of other Dalpatis namely, Anant Singh of Chudjario and Shri Vishwanath Prajapati of Bhairo Panchayat, whose appointments were approved but the case of the petitioner has not been considered. 3. However, the District Panchayat Officer was directed to place all the papers for approval before the Deputy Director, Panchayat Raj, Jharkhand, the cases of Anand Kumar Singh, Majid Ansari, Rouf Ansari and Surendra Gupta, who were working in Kisko, have been considered for promotion to the next post of Gram Sevak by leaving apart the case of the petitioner. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondent wherein the stand has been taken that the efforts of convening meeting has been made but for one reason or the other, the decision could not have been taken up. 5. Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan Shahdeo, AC to GP VI has submitted that while referring to Annexure-B of the counter affidavit whereby and whereunder the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in the light of the decision dated 14.11.2004 by which the appointment have been cancelled w.e.f. 28.03.1993 would be reinstated in service but without any monetary benefit for the period for which they have discharged their duties and therefore it has been submitted that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Government. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while refuting the submissions and grounds advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent has submitted that the instruction issued under the signature of Secretary, Panchayati Raj National Rural Employment Programme as contained under Annexure-D is not applicable to the petitioner which would be evident from the decision as contained in Clause No. “Ka” of the aforesaid instruction which is applicable to such Dalpatis, who have been appointed but subsequently their appointment have been cancelled w.e.f. 29.03.1993, while the case of the petitioner is that, he is working since 1996 regularly and his appointment has never been cancelled and therefore it should not be applicable for the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, the factual aspect as per the pleadings made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been appointed as Dalpati w.e.f. 26.05.1996 in pursuance to decision taken by the Gram Panchayat in its meeting which was held on 20.04.1996. Petitioner claims that he is regularly discharging his duties as Dalpati, and therefore, he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post taking into consideration the long length of service but the authorities will not consider this aspect of the matter, he, having no option, has approached to this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 8. It is evident from the counter affidavit that the respondents are not disputing the claim of the petitioner save and except in paragraph-6 at page-6 wherein it has been stated that the B.D.O. without having authority and power, has confirmed the appointment of the petitioner. However, in several paragraphs it has been stated that the efforts for convening meeting of the competent authority had been taken but for one reason or the other the meeting could not have taken place. The contention which has been raised by the learned counsel Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan Shahdeo, AC to GP VI, who has referred to Annexure-D has submitted that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid executive instruction. The contention which has been raised by the learned counsel Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan Shahdeo, AC to GP VI, who has referred to Annexure-D has submitted that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid executive instruction. He has relied upon the decision as contained in paragraph-“Ka” of instruction dated 14.11.2004 but this Court while scrutinizing the decision taken by the authority has found that the same pertains to such category of Dalpatis whose appointment have been cancelled and as such the decision was taken to reappoint them but with the condition that they will not be entitled to get any benefit of the past services rendered by such category of employee. 9. Here, in the instant case, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that they are continuing in service since the date of appointment, the aforesaid submission made by him in the writ petition has not been controverted in the counter affidavit save and except the sub-paragraph of paragraph-6 wherein it has been stated that his services has wrongly been approved by the concerned Block Development Officer. 10. It is further evident from the pleading made in the writ petition that the reference of the names of some Dalpatis, namely, Anand Kumar Singh, Majid Ansari, Rouf Ansari and Surendra Gupta (paragraph-12 of the writ petition) and Anant Singh and Vishwanath Prajapati of Chudjario and Bhairo Panchayat respectively, as per the statement made in paragraph-10 has not been denied by the State authority in the counter affidavit, since the statement made by the petitioner has been replied at paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit wherein the ground has been taken that the case of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration for the reason that the meeting of the Establishment Committee could not be held while the statement made at paragraph-12 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the Dalpatis whose names have been mentioned in paragraph12, since have been found to be competent for recommendation, and accordingly recommended. 11. In view of such stand taken by the State-respondent, it is evident that in the meeting, the competency has been seen by the committee to recommend. 12. 11. In view of such stand taken by the State-respondent, it is evident that in the meeting, the competency has been seen by the committee to recommend. 12. It is not the case of the State-respondent that the competency and suitability of the petitioner has ever been assessed since nothing has been averred in the counter affidavit rather it has been stated that the meeting has been decided to be conducted but for one reason or the other, the meeting could not have been taken place, therefore, in absence of any meeting it cannot be presumed that competency of the petitioner has been assessed. Therefore, the matter requires to be considered by the authority. 13. In view thereof, while disposing of the writ petition the matter is remitted before the respondent No.3-District Panchayat Raj Officer, Lohardaga to look into the suitability of the petitioner along with the other criteria so that a decision may be taken with respect to the claim of the petitioner as agitated preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 14. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner. 15. This Court has also not examined the suitability of the petitioner for recommendation and it is up to the authority to scrutinize the suitability for its recommendation in accordance with law for further necessary action. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.