Nitu KumariversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10568 of 2024
     ======================================================
1.    Nitu Kumari Daughter of Sri Ramnath Chaudhary, Resident of Village and
      Post-Gerabari Bazar, Police Station-Kodha, District-Katihar.
2.   Bindu Kumari, Daughter of Sri Shivnandan Sah, Resident of Mohalla-
     Gerabari Bazar, Police Station-Kodha, District-Katihar.
3.   Ritu Kumari, Daughter of Murli Bhagat, Resident of Village-Lahsa, Police
     Station-Mansahi, District-Katihar.
4.   Satyajeet Kumar Singh, son of Late Kinkar Singh, Resident of Village-
     Indrapuri, Police Station-Katihar, District-Katihar.

                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
     Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3.   The District Magistrate, Katihar.
4.   The District Education Officer, Katihar.
5.   The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Katihar.
6.   The Block Development Officer, Mansahi, Katihar.
7.   The Block Education Officer, Mansahi, Katihar.
8.   The Engagement Unit, Gram Panchayat Raj Fulhara, Block-Mansahi,
     District-Katihar.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr.Ranjan Kumar Singh, Adv.
     For the State          :      Mr.Ajay Behari Sinha, GA 8
                                   Mr. Upendra Kr. Singh, AC to GA 8
     For the Res. No. 8     :      Ms. Shilpi Keshari, Adv.
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                         ORAL JUDGMENT
     Date : 06-01-2026
                 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned Advocate

      for the petitioners and Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, learned Senior

      Advocate for the State. The respondent No. 8 is represented

      through Ms. Shilpi Keshari, learned Advocate.

                      2. The petitioners are aggrieved with the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.10568 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026
                                           2/9




         passed in Case No. Appeal T-941/2022 by which the appeal

         preferred by the respondent No. 8 has been allowed after setting

         aside the order dated 10.12.2020 passed in Appeal No. 20/2019

         by the District Appellate Authority, Katihar. The respondent

         State Appellate Authority by the order impugned also pleased to

         cancel the appointment of the private respondents, the

         petitioners herein, with effect from their appointment within the

         fortnight and the concerned Panchayat Secretary has also been

         directed to recover the amount, if any, paid to them, in

         accordance with law.

                       3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners narrating the

         short facts of the case has submitted that in connection with the

         appointment of the Panchayat Teachers, some of the candidates

         had approached this Court in CWJC No. 5920 of 2011, titled as

         Saroj Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. which

         came to be disposed of along with other analogous cases with a

         direction to the Employment Unit of Gram Panchayat Raj,

         Phulhara, Manashi in the district of Katihar for fresh counselling

         within the stipulated period. Aggrieved with the said order, the

         State of Bihar preferred Civil Review Appeal No. 456 of 2013

         which came to be rejected on 14.05.2014. In terms with the

         order passed by this Court, 14 Primary Teachers were provided
Patna High Court CWJC No.10568 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026
                                           3/9




         their engagement letters, out of total 20 vacancies. The

         petitioners having strengthen with the afore noted order,

         preferred Appeal bearing No. 20/2019 before the District

         Appellate Authority, Katihar. The afore noted authority having

         considered the claim of the petitioners, directed the Panchayat

         Teachers Employment Unit, Phulhara                     to facilitate the

         counselling and ensure employment within a month.

                       4. Notwithstanding the order passed by the District

         Appellate Authority, when the counselling of the petitioners

         could not be done, they approached this Court by filing CWJC

         No. 5234 of 2024 and the Court directed the Presiding Officer,

         District Appellate Authority, Katihar to dispose of the contempt

         petition within a period of six weeks. In the meanwhile, the

         Panchayat       Secretary-cum           Secretary,   Panchayat   Teacher

         Employment Unit has preferred a review application before the

         District Appellate Authority bearing No. 01/2021. While the

         review application was pending consideration, again the said

         Panchayat Secretary preferred an appeal against the order of the

         District Appellate Authority bearing Appeal No. T-941/2022.

                       5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners referring to

         the aforesaid facts submitted that surprisingly the State

         Appellate Authority despite having taken note of the fact that
Patna High Court CWJC No.10568 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026
                                           4/9




         once the appellant cum Panchayat Secretary has already

         preferred review application, therefore he cannot be allowed to

         seek two remedies simultaneously before the two forums but

         despite the aforesaid fact, entertained the appeal and allowed the

         appellant cum Panchayat Secretary to withdraw the review

         application and pursue the appeal. Taking this Court through the

         impugned order, learned Advocate for the petitioners further

         submits that bare perusal of the same, it is crystal clear that the

         State Appellate Authority also passed the impugned order

         without proper application of mind directing for cancellation of

         the appointment of the petitioner, irrespective of the fact that the

         petitioners had neither been appointed nor any salary has been

         extended to them. It is further informed to this Court that till

         date even the counselling could not have been done in pursuant

         to the order of the District Appellate Authority.

                       6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

         respondent No. 5 in support of the impugned order passed by

         the State Appellate Authority. It is submitted that the first phase

         of the appointment of Panchayat Teachers, 2006 has already

         come to its closure on 31.12.2010 and the posts which

         remained vacant have been carried forward for the next

         transaction. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10568 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026
                                           5/9




         District Appellate Authority was not the competent authority to

         adjudicate the issue pertaining to the first phase of appointment,

         at the first instance, for the reason that in matters pertaining to

         first phase of appointment, the concerned BDO was the

         competent authority to adjudicate the same. It has also been

         brought to the notice of the Court that the State Government has

         come out with a letter bearing No. 1769 dated 24.11.2014 that

         all the remaining unfilled vacancies under the 2006 or 2008

         Rules must be filled up on or by 31.01.2015 and thereafter no

         appointment shall be made against any of the vacancies which

         have not been filled up in terms with the Rules 2006/2008/2012

         as the appointment of the teachers shall be made amongst the

         eligible candidates, who are having requisite qualification of

         Teachers Eligibility Test.

                       7. Ms. Shilpi Keshari, learned Advocate for the

         respondent No. 8 also supported the order passed by the State

         Appellate Authority.

                       8. Having considered the submissions advanced by

         the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note

         of the order passed by the State Appellate Authority, this Court

         finds substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate for

         the petitioners to the extent that the order has been passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.10568 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026
                                           6/9




         without application of mind. It is the admitted position that till

         date neither counselling of the petitioners has been done nor the

         petitioners      had     ever     been        appointed   or   paid   any

         remuneration/salary. This Court also finds that the appeal filed

         by the Panchayat Secretary cum Secretary, Panchayat Teachers

         Employment Unit during the pendency of the review application

         ought not to be entertained once the State Appellate Authority

         has been duly informed that the Employment Unit has preferred

         review application; nonetheless they have pursued with the

         appeal, besides the fact the order also suffers from coram non

         judice as there is no legal member.

                       9. It would be pertinent to observe here that under

         Rule 4(3) of the Bihar State School Teachers and Employees

         Disputes Redressal Rules, 2015 (in short ‘Rules, 2015’) clearly

         mandates that the State Appellate Authority shall be consisting

         of two members, out of which Chairperson shall be a retired

         Judge of the Hon’ble High Court and the another Member shall

         be a retired officer of the Indian Administrative Service, not

         below the rank of Principal Secretary. In the case at hand, the

         impugned order has been passed by the Chairperson of the Indian

         Administrative Service in absence of the Chairperson(legal), who

         will be a retired Justice of the Hon’ble High Court. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.10568 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026
                                           7/9




         identical issue has also come up for consideration in the case of

         State of Gujarat Vs. Utility Welfare Association [(2018) 6 SCC

         21 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 368], wherein the Court in its

         penultimate paragraph Nos. 117 and 118 observed as follows:

                         “117. In Madras Bar Assn. [Madras Bar Assn. v.
                         Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1] (MJ-II), the
                         Constitution Bench, referring to the decision in
                         Madras Bar Assn. [Union of India v. Madras Bar
                         Assn., (2010) 11 SCC 1] (MJ-I) observed that
                         members of tribunals discharging judicial
                         functions could only be drawn from sources
                         possessed of expertise in law and competent to
                         discharge judicial functions. We are conscious of
                         the fact that the case (MJ-I) dealt with a factual
                         matrix where the powers vested in courts were
                         sought to be transferred to the tribunal, but what is
                         relevant is the aspect of judicial functions with all
                         the “trappings of the court” and exercise of
                         judicial power, at least, in respect of same part of
                         the functioning of the State Commission. Thus, if
                         the Chairman of the Commission is not a man of
                         law, there should, at least, be a member who is
                         drawn from the legal field. The observations of the
                         Constitution Bench in Madras Bar Assn. [Madras
                         Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1]
                         (MJ-II) constitute a declaration on the concept of
                         basic structure with reference to the concepts of
                         “separation of powers”, “rule of law” and
                         “judicial review”. The first question raised before
                         the Constitution Bench as to whether judicial
                         review was part of the basic structure of the
                         Constitution was, thus, answered in the affirmative.

                         118. We are, thus, of the view that it is mandatory
                         to have a person of law, as a member of the State
                         Commission. When we say so, it does not imply
Patna High Court CWJC No.10568 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026
                                           8/9




                         that any person from the field of law can be picked
                         up. It has to be a person, who is, or has been
                         holding a judicial office or is a person possessing
                         professional qualifications with substantial
                         experience in the practice of law, who has the
                         requisite qualifications to have been appointed as a
                         Judge of the High Court or a District Judge.”

                       10. Similar matters have also come up for

         consideration in CWJC No. 17508 of 2021 along with CWJC

         No. 17406 of 2021, where the learned coordinate Bench of this

         Court having considered the afore noted prescription of Rules

         2015 and the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat Vs.

         Utility Welfare Association held that a person, who does not

         posses qualification to have been appointed as a Judge of the

         High court or the District Court cannot hold the post of

         Chairperson and set aside the order passed by the one Member

         of the State Appellate Authority, who belongs to the Indian

         Administrative Service and relegated the matter to the State

         Appellate Authority for disposal of the appeal by the duly

         constituted State Appellate Authority.

                       11. For all these reasons, this Court finds that the

         impugned order is fit to be set aside. Accordingly, the order

         passed by the State Appellate Authority in Case No. Appeal T-

         941/2022 is set aside. For the ends of justice, the matter is

         relegated to the State Appellate Authority, who shall take up the
             Patna High Court CWJC No.10568 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026
                                                        9/9




                      appeal afresh and decide the same after giving proper

                      opportunity of hearing to all concerned, preferably within a

                      period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a

                      copy of this order.

                                    12. The writ petition stands allowed in the afore

                      noted observations.

                                    13. The records as was called for by this Court in

                      pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2025 is returned to the office

                      of the learned Senior Advocate of the State.




                                                  (Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date           12 .01.2026
Transmission Date