Patna High Court
Sudhihar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The review petition is dismissed as the petitioners lack locus standi and the matter is already pending before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of six candidates who were not selected for Block Teacher posts, filed a review petition challenging a High Court order that allowed the appointed teachers (the second set of petitioners) to receive salary for services rendered since August 2015. The review petition argued that the appointed teachers’ salaries should not be paid pending the resolution of an appeal concerning the validity of their appointments, and contended that the review petitioners had standing to intervene. The Court examined the prior remand of the appeal to the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, the prolonged delay of more than ten years in adjudicating that appeal, and the Supreme Court precedents that entitlement to salary arises once an employee discharges duties, even if the appointment is later found irregular. It held that the review petitioners lacked locus standi, that the review petition was an improper attempt to re‑litigate matters already before the appellate authority, and that imposing costs would be excessive given their unemployment. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed without prejudice to the pending appeal. The Court emphasized that the salary issue for the appointed teachers remains governed by the earlier Supreme Court rulings and that the appellate authority must decide the appeal expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Does the review petition have locus standi to challenge the salary order granted to the appointed teachers?
- Can a review petition be entertained when the underlying appeal has been remanded and remains pending for an extended period?
- Are the appointed teachers entitled to salary despite the pending appeal questioning the regularity of their appointment?
- May the Court impose costs on petitioners for filing a review petition deemed frivolous or vexatious?
- Does the delay in adjudication of the appeal infringe the right to life under Article 23 of the Constitution?
Subjects
- review petition
- salary entitlement
- block teacher appointment
- locus standi
- delay in adjudication
- costs
- Article 23
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.247 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14166 of 2025
======================================================
1. Sudhihar Kumar Son of Ruplal Mahto, resident of village- Aliganj, P.O.-
Aliganj, P.S.- Sikandara, District- Jamui, Bihar.
2. Ravindra Kumar, Son of Rambriksha Yadav, resident of Village- Akaunadih,
P.O. - Akaunadih, P.S.- Muffassil, District- Nawadah, Bihar.
3. Rita Kumari, daughter of Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of Vill P.O. -
Fatehpur, P.S.- Akbarpur, District- Nawadah, Bihar.
4. Pankaj Kumar, Son of Bijay Chaudhary, resident of Village- Prasad Bigha,
Nawadah, P.S. -Nawadah, District- Nawadah, Bihar.
5. Saista Khatoon, daughter of Md. Sakil Ahmad, resident of Village-
Gondapur, P.O. - Gondapur, P.S. - Nawadah, District- Nawadah, Bihar.
6. Ram Pravesh Kumar, Son of Shankar Mahto, resident of Village- Darkha,
P.O.- Darkha, P.S.- Sikandara, District- Jamui, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Nawadah.
4. The District Programme Officer (Est.). Nawadah.
5. The Block Education Officer, Akbarpur, District - Nawadah.
6. Sindhu Rani, daughter of Ramanugrah Singh, resident of Village- Orhanpur,
Post Office- Nawadah, Police Station - Muffasil, District- Nawadah,
presently posted as Block Teacher, Government of Middle School,
Mahanandpur, Block- Akbarpur, District- Nawadah.
7. Purushottam Kumar, Son of Girijinandan Singh, resident of village-
Gopalpur, Police Station - Akbarpur, District- Nawadah, presently posted as
Prakhand Teacher in National Middle School, Akbarpur, Block- Akbarpur,
District Nawadah.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Advocate
Mr. Bhola Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Government Advocate 2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
2/13
learned counsel for the respondents/ opposite parties.
2. The instant petition is filed with the prayer to
review the judgment and order dated 02.09.2025 passed in
CWJC No.14166 of 2025 by this Court, whereby and
whereunder, the writ application filed by the writ petitioners/
opposite parties (2nd set) herein for payment of salary was
disposed of.
3. The instant review petition has been preferred by
one of the candidates, who is stated to have been non-suited in
the appointment process undertaken pursuant to the
advertisement issued for the post of Block Teachers in the
Akbarpur Prakhand Niyojan Unit. After completion of the
selection formalities, the writ petitioners/opposite parties (2nd
set) are stated to have been appointed. The review petitioner had
initially filed a writ petition, being CWJC No. 17775 of 2015,
challenging the appointment of the writ petitioners/opposite
parties (2nd set), in which the learned Single Judge passed the
following order:—
5. The learned counsel for the respective parties
are in agreement, apart from this Court also being
of the opinion, that the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority, Nawada ought to
have decided the appeal on merits and should not
have summarily dismissed the appeal. It has also
been pointed out that much water has flown in the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
3/13
meantime and the Vigilance has also lodged an FIR
against the State authorities who have committed
fraud and illegality, not only in the matter of
issuance of select list but also in the process of
issuance of appointment letter to the unsuccessful
candidates.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and having considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties, I deem
it fit and proper to quash the order dated
28.09.2015, passed by the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority, Nawadah, and
remand the matter back to the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority, Nawadah for
reconsideration of the matter afresh on merits,
upon grant of an opportunity of hearing to the
respective parties.
7. It goes without saying that the petitioners would
be at liberty to file additional affidavits, bringing
on record all the documents/ select list etc. and the
details about the events which have taken place
during the interregnum period. It is further directed
that the interim order dated 1.2.2018 passed by this
Court in the present case to the effect that no
payment of salary shall be made to the Block
Teachers, who have obtained appointment pursuant
to the selection process in question, shall continue
till the final disposal of the appeal by the District
Teachers Employment Appellate Authority,
Nawadah.
4. It is further evident from the record that L.P.A. No.
833 of 2019 was preferred by the review petitioners and the
same was dismissed with the following observations:—
“….4. We find absolutely no reason to accept the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
4/13
consent was only with respect to the disposal of the
writ petition at the admission stage itself. The writ
petition itself was filed in the year 2015 and the
impugned judgment was passed on 19.06.2019,
after four years. Further, no such specific ground
has been taken in the appeal or even in the review
petition. The appellants, hence have been
prevaricating and there is an amount of dishonesty
in having taken such contrary stances at different
stages of the present litigation.”
5. In light of these observations made in the appeal
filed by the review petitioners being L.P.A. No. 833 of 2019, the
Hon’ble Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, made
categorical observation with respect to the subject matter, as also
with regard to the salary, which have been denied to the teachers
discharging their duties. The said observations are extracted
below:
10. The learned Counsel appearing for the party
respondents, however, would submit that they had
been continuing without salary for long. The stay
of disbursement of salary was ordered by a learned
Single Judge, especially looking at the Vigilance
Enquiry Report which is also on a prima facie
consideration. In the above circumstances, when
there is a remand made, it is only proper that the
disbursement of salary would also be subject to the
finding of the Appellate Authority, to which the
case has been remanded.
11. We make it clear that the observations in the
orders passed in the writ petition or this judgment
in appeal; but for the directions herein above,
would not regulate the consideration of the subject
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
5/13
matter by the Appellate Authority. The appellants
and the respondents herein, will appear before the
District Teachers Appellate Authority, Nawada on
28.11.2023. If the respondents are not made a
party, they would be impleaded. The District
Teachers Appellate Authority would consider the
issue and dispose of the same as expeditiously as
possible, especially considering the fact that those
appointed are denied of their salaries. We also
observe that it would be the responsibility of the
authorities to establish that the selection conducted
was fair and valid on the basis of the records
maintained.
12. The L.P.A. stands dismissed with the further
directions herein above to the District Teachers
Appellate Authority, Nawada. Parties are left to
suffer their respective costs.
6. It is next evident from the record that the review
petitioners did not stop here, but challenged the order passed in
L.P.A. No. 833 of 2019 by filing a Special Leave Petition before
the Hon’ble Apex Court, being SLP (C) No. 4368 of 2024. After
hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
materials on record, the Hon’ble Apex Court found no reason or
ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 833 of 2019; accordingly,
SLP (C) No. 4368 of 2024 was dismissed. With the dismissal of
the SLP and the judgment/order passed by the Hon’ble Division
Bench in L.P.A. No. 833 of 2019, though it did not merge, but
attained finality.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
6/13
7. In view of the above, the remand made by the
learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 19.06.2019 in CWJC
No. 17775 of 2015 required the District Teachers Employment
Appellate Authority, Nawada, to adjudicate Appeal No. 16 of
2015, which was subsequently renumbered as Appeal No. 03 of
2025, and to decide the claim of the review petitioners, in which
the Government officials including the persons appointed have
been made party, but admittedly, the writ petitioners’
appointment has till date not been interfered with by the
Authority in question to which, the coordinate Bench had
directed to adjudicate the claim of the review petitioners.
8. From the pleadings in the contempt petition (MJC
No.3620 of 2025), as well as in the review petition, which is
said to have been filed by the review petitioners (though not
party in the instant writ petition in which instant review petition
is filed), it does not appear as to why, despite the remand order
passed by the learned Single Judge, which has been approved by
the Hon’ble Division Bench, and the challenge to the same
having been made before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was
dismissed in limine, till date the appeal, which was filed in the
year 2015 and remanded in the year 2019, has remained pending
for more than 10 years, and even for ensuring early adjudication,
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
7/13
only effort has been taken by the review petitioners by invoking
the remedies as provided in law.
9. It is not the case of the review petitioners that they
made themselves available before the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority on each and every date fixed,
and despite their participation, no adjudication has been made.
Owing to such prolonged pendency of the appeal and delay in
adjudication, the writ petitioners/opposite parties (2nd set) were
compelled to file a writ application bearing CWJC No. 14166 of
2025 with the following prayer:-
(i) For setting aside the impugned order bearing
Memo No.120 dated 21.06.2025, passed in
Complaint Case No.03 of 2024 by learned District
Teachers Employment Appellate Authority,
Nawada, (Annexure-P/8), whereby in pursuant to
liberty granted by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7458
of 2024 vide order dated 13.08.2024 in batch cases
giving liberty to the petitioners to move before
District Appellate Authority first for redressal of
grievance for non-payment of salary of the working
period since 03.08.2015 to till date and
accordingly, petitioner filed Case No.03 of 2024
before the District Appellate Authority, Nawada
which has been disposed of without passing final
order on the issue of payment of due salary since
03.08.2015 during which petitioners have
discharged duty but by virtue of impugned order
claim of petitioners have been denied in pretext of
pendency of one complaint being Case No.03 of
2025 filed by the unsuccessful candidates raising
the issue of validity of appointment of petitioners
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
8/13
but till date appointment of petitioners have not
been cancelled and as such impugned order is bad
in eye of law as also contrary to Article 23 of the
Constitution of India.
(ii) For directing the respondents concerned to pay
the due salary of petitioners for working period i.e.
03.08.2015 till date in view of settled proposition of
law by Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment reported in
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 341 (Man Singh Versus State of
Uttar Pradesh) as well as 2024(1) PLJR (SC) 176
(Radheshyam Yadav Versus State of Uttar Pradesh)
as also in view of Memo No.734 dated 08.07.2022
issued by the Respondent State itself specially with
regard to payment of salary of working period and
despite that non payment of the same in pretext of
pendency of case filed by another person is not
tenable in the eye of law.
(iii) For any other relief(s) for which petitioners
are found entitled to in the eye of law.
10. In the said writ petition, the writ
petitioners/opposite parties (2nd set) made a specific prayer that
the authorities may be directed to pay their salaries for the
period of service from 03.08.2015 to date, in view of the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Man Singh v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 341, which
specifically directs that if the respondent State has allowed
employees to discharge their duties, they are entitled to receive
payment of salary for the period they have worked on the post
against their appointment. However, the judgment also
categorically states that, even if the appointment is irregular, still
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
9/13
the employee who has discharged his duties on the post is
entitled to the same. The relevant portion of the order passed by
the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is extracted herein below:
“We find that the High Court has failed
to consider the fact that even if the appointment
was irregular, the appellant had discharged the
duties and in lieu of duties, he had to be paid. The
State cannot take any work from any employee
without payment of any salary.”
11. Since, the review petitioners have already been
non-suited by the duly constituted selection committee, and the
writ petitioners/opposite parties (2nd set) were appointed by the
said committee and are continuing in service pursuant to such
appointment, (though their appointments are subject matter of
appeal) there is no reason, nor do the review petitioners have
any locus, at this stage, to seek interference with the relief
sought by the writ petitioners/opposite parties (2nd set), as the
relief sought are in the nature of protecting their right to life
guaranteed under the constitutional scheme. Moreover, the
Division Bench has already dismissed LPA No. 833 of 2019,
filed by these review petitioners, categorically observing that the
appellants/review petitioners have been prevaricating and have
also demonstrated a degree of dishonesty by taking contrary
stances at different stages of the present litigation, which is quite
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
10/13
evident from the conduct of these review petitioners, who are
said to have not come with clean hands, by not bringing on
record the similar attempts made by filing LPA No.185 of 2025
in CWJC No.6748 of 2024, which was dismissed on the ground
of locus standi. Furthermore, they did not provide the reasons
regarding pendency of the appeal and the efforts having been
taken to get the same decided expeditiously, in which directions
have been made by the learned Single Judge to decide the same,
while it is the case of the writ petitioners/ opposite parties (2 nd
set) is that the review petitioners are unnecessarily getting the
same adjourned and delaying the appeal pending before the
District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Nawadah.
12. At this stage, learned counsel for the review
petitioners prayed that the statement made in paragraph 6 of the
review petition be taken into consideration. Whereas, this Court
rejects such prayer in view of the observations made by the
Hon’ble Division Bench, which specifically record that the
review petitioners have been changing their stance at different
stages in various proceedings. However, it is apt to record that
the Hon’ble Division Bench, while approving the remand made
by the learned Single Judge, observed that the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority, Nawada, would consider the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
11/13
issue and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible,
especially considering the fact that the appointees to the post are
denied their salary, whereas it has also been observed in the said
order that it would be the responsibility of the authority to
establish that the selection conducted was fair and valid on the
basis of the records maintained.
13. It is worth to note that while making remand of
the appeal in question, the learned Single Judge may not have
thought that the appeal may remain pending for almost 6 years
even from the date of remand, and the appointees may be
coerced to file writ application for payment of salary, owing to
such inordinate delay in disposal of the appeal.
14. Considering the aforesaid, this Court observes that
the review petitioners, without any prudent reason, and instead
of concentrating on the adjudication/ disposal of the appeal, are
chasing the writ petitioners/opposite parties (2nd set) by means
of all available legal remedies, while such appropriate remedies
have already been exhausted with their appeal having been
restored and as such, their attempt to file the review petition, to
re-argue/re-agitate the whole issues, for which the forum has
already been provided with restoration of appeal, cannot be
permitted. This Court had disclosed its mind to impose a cost of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
12/13
Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) each upon all the
review petitioners, for having misused the legal process by filing
the review petition, despite having no locus to interfere in the
relief, for which the writ petition was filed; but, on the prayer
made by the instructing counsel of this case to consider the fact
that the review petitioners are jobless and payment of cost may
be difficult for them, this Court refrains from imposing such cost
for the present, giving sympathetic consideration, as also by
acceding the prayer of the counsel made at the concluding stage
of the argument.
15. From the conduct of the review petitioners, it is
quite clear that, instead of focusing on their appeal and getting
the same adjudicated as per the remand made by the learned
Single Judge, which, having been approved by the Hon’ble
Division Bench, the attempt being made by them to prejudice
the right of these writ petitioners/opposite parties (2nd set) by
filing a review petition is highly deprecated, as it shows their
malice and hidden agenda so designed to re-initiate the fresh
proceedings, which have already been culminated with the
direction to the District Teachers Employment Appellate
Authority to adjudicate the appeal expeditiously; and, the same
having not been decided even after expiry of six years from the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
13/13
date of remand, the writ petitioners/opposite parties (2nd set),
taking cue from the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Man Singh (supra), invoked the jurisdiction of the Court for
payment of salary to protect their livelihood and right to life,
and while doing so, they were well within their constitutional
limits and rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
16. Accordingly, the instant review petition stands
dismissed.
17. It is made clear that any observation made by this
Court, while deciding the review petition, may not affect the
merits of the appeal, which is remanded by the coordinate
Bench to be adjudicated by the District Teacher Employment
Appellate Authority, Nawadah, and the parties are at liberty to
have their grievances redressed/adjudicated on its own merit,
without getting prejudiced by any observation made in this case,
in any manner.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U
Checking your session…