Patna High Court
Md. Taufique Ahmed AnsariversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, upholding the orders of the District and State Appellate Authorities.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Taufique Ahmed Ansari, challenged the dismissal of his appeal against the appointment of respondent No.10 as a teacher, alleging he had higher marks but was denied participation in the counselling held on 28‑02‑2009. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority and the State Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal on the ground of delay, without examining the merits. The petitioner argued the orders were bad in law, while the respondents contended the selection‑cum‑appointment process was regular. The High Court examined the counselling records, noted the petitioner’s absence and inordinate delay, and found no satisfactory explanation for the delay. Consequently, the Court upheld the appellate authorities’ orders and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay/time‑bar is legally valid.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief despite missing the counselling and filing the appeal after a long delay.
- Whether the appellate authorities erred by not examining the merits of the petitioner's grievance.
Subjects
- teacher recruitment
- appointment
- counselling
- delay
- time‑barred appeal
- writ petition
- selection‑cum‑appointment
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11606 of 2017
======================================================
Md. Taufique Ahmed Ansari son of Md. Taslim Ansari resident of Village -
Khardih, Post - Khardih, Police Station - Sikandra, Block - Sikandra, District
- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Jamui.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamui.
5. The Member, District Teacher Appellate Authority, Jamui.
6. The Block Development Officer, Sikandra, Jamui.
7. The Block Extension Education Officer, Sikandra, Jamui.
8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Khardih, Post - Khardih, Police Station
Block - Sikandra, District
9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Khardih, Post - Khardih,
Police Station Block - Sikand
10. Jawed Eqbal Ansari son of Riyasat Hussain resident of Village - Khardih,
Post - Khardih, Police Station - Sikandra, Block - Sikandra, District - Jamui.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. S.C. Mishra- SC-16
For respondent no. 9 : Mr. Ram Vinay Prasad Singh (Sanjay), Adv.
For respondent no. 10 : Mr. Arun Kumar Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 9 and 10 and learned counsel for the
State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11606 of 2017 dt.09-01-2026
2/8
2. The petitioner in the present case has challenged the
order passed in Appeal Case No. 429 of 2010 contained in Memo
No. 287, dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure-27 to the Interlocutory
Application Application), passed by the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui and the consequent order
dated 12.07.2017, passed by the State Appellate Authority, Bihar
in Case No. 22 of 2017.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner
was possessing better marks than the respondent no. 10 and that
despite having better marks, the petitioner was prevented from
participating in the counselling, which was held on 28.02.2009, as
a result of which, respondent no. 10 with lesser marks than the
petitioner was appointed on 14.08.2010. After the respondent no.
10, who as per the petitioner was having lesser marks than the
petitioner was appointed, the petitioner challenged the said
appointment by filing an appeal before the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui on 30.09.2010.
4. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the
impugned order passed by the District Teachers Appellate
Authority on 22.06.2011 is bad in law for the reason that the
District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui has
simply dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground
Patna High Court CWJC No.11606 of 2017 dt.09-01-2026
3/8
of delay without looking into the merits of the case. Aggrieved by
this order, when the petitioner challenged the same before the State
Appellate Authority, the State Appellate Authority also simply
concurred with the finding given by the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui and did not bother to
examine the merits of the matter.
5. Being aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioner
has filed the present writ application.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 10
submits that the order passed by the District Teachers Employment
Appellate Authority, Jamui as well as the State Appellate Authority
are both well reasoned and speaking order and, therefore, there is
no need to interfere with the orders, which have been impugned in
the present writ application.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 9
supports the case of respondent no. 10 and submits that no
irregularity or illegality was committed in the entire selection-
cum-appointment process and, therefore, the grievance of the
petitioner is completely mis-conceived.
8. After hearing the submissions made by the parties, it
is considered appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow the entire order
dated 22.06.2011, passed in Appeal Case No. 429 of 2010, by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11606 of 2017 dt.09-01-2026
4/8
District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui, which
is as follows:
“dk;kZy; ftyk f”k{kd fu;kstu vihyh; izkf/kdkj] teqbZ
eks0 rkSfQd vgen valkjh okn la0 429@10
cuke
fu;kstu bdkbZ xzke iapk;r
jkt [kM+Mhg] fladUnjkA
ekeyk f”k{kd fu;kstu 2008 ls lacaf/kr gS esa
oknh dk dguk gS fd os vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ ds vizf”kf{kr
vH;kFkhZ gS dk es/kk vad 71-25 gSA mnwZ f”k{kd ds fy,
vkosnu fn;k FkkA fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk dkmfUlfyax
bR;kfn dk lwpuk ugha nh xbZ FkhA fQj Hkh dkmfUlfyax
fd tkudkjh feyus ij dkmfULkfyax Lrj ij x;kA ogka
ij eq>ls dkmfULkfyax ugha fy;k x;kA
ekeys fd lquokbZ izkjaHk dh xbZA oknh
izfroknh mifLFkr gq,A izfroknh fu;kstu bdkbZ dk dguk
gS fd muds iapk;r esa vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ dksfV esa fu;kstu
gsrq dksbZ in ugha fn;k x;kA fu;kstu gsrq dqy pkj in
fn;k x;k Fkk ftlesa vukjf{kr 1 vukjf{kr efgyk 1
fiNM+k oxZ efgyk 1 ,oa vuqlwfpr tkfr dk ,d in
vkjf{kr Fkk mlesa 2 lkekU; ,oa 2 mnwZ f”k{kd dk fu;kstu
fd;k x;kA oknh fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks dkmfULkfyax esa
mifLFkr ugha gq, Fks ftl dkj.k vf/kd es/kk vad jgus ds
dkj.k Hkh fu;kstu izfdz;k esa “kkfey ugha fd;k tk ldk
vkSj muls de es/kk vad okys tkosn bDdcky es/kk vad
69-66 gS dk fu;kstu fd;k x;kA oknh dk vkjksi vlR;
gS D;ksafd dkmfULkfyax esa mifLFkr gksus ds ckn ;fn mudk
dkmfULkfyax ugha djok;k tkrk rks os lle; bl laca/k esa
vkifRr djrs tks fd oknh ds }kjk ugha fd;k x;kA bl
ij oknh dk dguk gS fd dkmfULkfyax ugha gksus dh
f”kdk;r ugha dj ik;s D;ksafd os lgkj.kiqj mRrj izns”k esa
i<+ jgs FksA oknh }kjk fu;qfDr gksus ds ckn izkf/kdkj esa
Patna High Court CWJC No.11606 of 2017 dt.09-01-2026
5/8
vihy nk;j djus ds fu/kkZfjr le; lhek ds ckn vihy
nk;j dh xbZ gS ftlds dkj.k ekeyk dky ckf/kr Hkh
curk gSA
mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij iapk;r lfpo dk
dFku oknh ds dkmfULkfyax esa mifLFkr ugha gksuk ;k oknh
}kjk dkmfULkfyax ugha gksus ls lacaf/kr lle; vihy ugha
djuk] fu;qfDr izfdz;k iw.kZ gksus ds dkWQh fnu ckn vihy
ntZ djkuk bR;kfn Li’V djrk gS fd fu;kstu izfdz;k ds
nkSjku oknh dks bl fu;kstu esa :ph ugha jgh gSA vFkok os
lgkj.kiqj mRrj izns”k esa f”k{kk xzg.k djus ds dkj.k os
bl fu;kstu esa mnklhu jgsA lkFk gh ekeyk dky ckf/kr
gks tkus ds dkj.k Hkh oknh ds nkos dks [kkfjt fd;k tkrk
gSA
g0
ujs”k dqekj flag
lnL;
ftyk f”k{kd fu;kstu
vihyh; izkf/kdkj] teqbZ
Kkikad 287 @ teqbZ] fnukad 22@6@11 @
izfrfyfi %& oknh ,oa izfroknh dks lwpukFkZ izsf’krA
g0@&
22@6@11
lnL;
ftyk f”k{kd fu;kstu
vihyh; izkf/kdkj] teqbZ”
09. It is further considered appropriate to reproduce
hereinbelow paragraph-7 of the order dated 12.07.2017, passed in
Case No. -Appeal 22 of 2017 by the State Appellate Authority,
Bihar, which is as follows:-
“The matter relates to the second
phase of teachers employment year 2008 for
which the schedule of counselling was widely
circulated by the Education Department.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11606 of 2017 dt.09-01-2026
6/8
Several candidates appeared before the
Panchayat Employment Committee in response
to the notice of counselling and candidates
who appeared for counselling were selected on
the basis of merit in accordance with the
prescribed criteria. Counselling was held on
28.02.2009 and the employment letter was
issued to respondent no. (x) on 14.08.2010. The
appellant has himself stated in the Memo of
Appeal that after getting the knowledge of date
of counselling from other sources, he
approached the Panchayat Employment
Committee with all original certificates, but his
counselling was not done. Original counselling
register, merit list of candidates and
proceedings book of the Panchayat for 2nd
phase of Teachers' employment year 2008 was
called for and were received. The appellant is
at sl. no.49 of the list of untrained candidates.
His name and signature do not appear in the
counselling register. In the proceedings
register, names of candidates who appeared in
the counselling on 28.02.2009 are recorded in
which name of the appellant does not appear.
The appellant kept quiet after the counselling
and filed an appeal after inordinate delay.
Therefore, learned District Authority has
rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant on the ground of being time barred.”
10. From careful perusal of both the above orders, it
clearly emerges that the petitioner did not participate in the
counselling, which was held on 28.02.2009 and thereafter instead
Patna High Court CWJC No.11606 of 2017 dt.09-01-2026
7/8
of immediately agitating against the same, the petitioner kept silent
and allowed the entire selection-cum-appointment process to be
completed which led to the appointment of respondent no. 10, on
14.08.2010. After completion of the entire selection-cum-
appointment process, the petitioner belatedly questioned the
appointment on 30.09.2010 by filing a case before the District
Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui.
11. From the reading of both the orders, it is apparent
that no sufficient or cogent explanation was given by the petitioner
for the inordinate delay in approaching the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui. In fact, from the perusal
of the order-sheet dated 30.11.2010 of Appeal No. 429 of 2010,
which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-P/28 series
in the reply to the supplementary counter affidavit, it appears that
the petitioner himself admitted before the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui that the petitioner did not
lodge any complaint or file any case before the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui after he was allegedly
deprived from participating in the counsellng, because at that point
of time he was studying in Saharanpur (U.P.). This explains the
reason, why the petitioner did not participate in the counselling
Patna High Court CWJC No.11606 of 2017 dt.09-01-2026
8/8
and thereafter also did not file any case immediately when the
cause of action had arisen way back on 28.02.2009.
12. The fact of the matter is that the respondent no. 10
was appointed on 14.08.2010 and since then the respondent no. 10
has been continuing in service. To be upsetting the appointment of
respondent no. 10, particularly on the basis of a case lodged by the
petitioner after inordinate delay, for which no sufficient
explanation was tendered by the petitioner either before the
District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui or
before the State Appellate Authority, would not be proper and in
the interest of justice.
13. Upon careful consideration of the entire facts and
circumstances of the case and taking note of the submissions made
by all the parties, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders
passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority,
Jamui and by the State Appellate Authority, Bihar and hence, the
present writ application stands dismissed.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
pravinkumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
Checking your session…