Patna High Court
Dharmendra Kumar RoyversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for delay and laches, and no relief is granted.
Summary
Dharmendra Kumar Roy filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Vinay Kumar as Panchayat Teacher in Makhar Panchayat, alleging the appointment was illegal, arbitrary, and based on a forged physically‑handicapped certificate with collusion of the Panchayat Secretary and Mukhiya. He sought a certiorari to set aside the appointment and a mandamus directing his own appointment, claiming he had better marks and qualifications. The court noted that the appointment occurred on 30‑02‑2010 and the petition was filed on 21‑08‑2017, a delay of nearly seven years, with no explanation offered. The petitioner also failed to approach the statutory remedy before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority. Considering the inordinate delay and lack of justification, the court dismissed the writ application on grounds of delay and laches.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can challenge the appointment of the Panchayat Teacher after a delay of nearly seven years without providing a cogent explanation.
- Whether the petitioner should have first approached the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority before filing the writ petition.
Subjects
- certiorari
- mandamus
- appointment
- Panchayat Teacher
- delay
- laches
- administrative law
- Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules 2008
- forged certificate
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12067 of 2017
======================================================
Dharmendra Kumar Roy Son of Chandra Bhushan Roy, Resident of Village-
Khanwan, Police Station- Narhat, District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Nawada.
5. The Member District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Nawada.
6. The District Education Officer, Nawada.
7. The Block Development Officer, Akbarpur, District- Nawada.
8. The Block Education Officer, Akbarpur, District- Nawada.
9. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, Makhar, Block- Akbarpur, District-
Nawada.
10. Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Raj, Makhar, Block- Akbarpur, District-
Nawada.
11. Vinay Kumar, Son of Sri Mohan Prasad, Resident of Village- Shekhbara,
P.S.- Meskaur, District- Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.K. Thakur, Adv.
Mr. P.K. Verma, Adv.
Ms. Priyam Kumari, Adv.
For the State : Mr. S.S. Tiwari, AC to AAG-15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
6 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent no. 11 and learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent/State.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application has
prayed for grant of the following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of an
Patna High Court CWJC No.12067 of 2017(6) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
appropriate writ in the nature of a writ of
Certiorary for setting aside the appointment
of Private Respondent no. 11, who has been
appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher
in Makhar Panchayat in Akbarpur Block in
Nawada District in 2nd Phase of Bihar
Panchayat Teacher appointment Rules, 2008
as his appointment is illegal and arbitrary
and the same was done with the collusion of
Panchayat Secretary as well as Mukhiya of
the said Panchayat on the basis of the forged
physically handicapped certificate of the
private Respondent no. 11.
(ii) For issuance of a writ in the
nature of Mandamus commanding and
directing upon the respondents concerned to
appoint the petitioner on the post of
Panchayat Teacher in Makhar Panchayat in
Akbarpur Block in the District of Nawada,
as the petitioner was not appointed inspite of
having better marks and qualification than
the private Respondent no. 11.
(iii) Any other relief or reliefs for
which the petitioner is found entitled to in
the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. From the careful perusal of the averments made in
the writ application as well as of the averments made in various
other affidavits filed by the respondents parties, the admitted
position which emerges is that the petitioner is challenging the
appointment of respondent no. 11 as Panchayat Teacher, which
Patna High Court CWJC No.12067 of 2017(6) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
was made on 30.02.2010. This writ application has been filed on
21.08.2017, after nearly seven years of the appointment of
respondent no. 11.
4. The question that emerges for consideration is
whether the petitioner can be allowed to challenge the
appointment after nearly seven years without offering any
cogent explanation for the delay in approaching this Court.
5. From the careful perusal of the pleadings contained
in the writ petition, I do not find that the petitioner has
explained the delay. Another aspect which cannot be lost sight
off is that the petitioner not only approached this Court
belatedly, but also without availing the statutory alternative
remedy of filing a case before the District Teachers Employment
Appellate Authority, Nawada.
6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am
not inclined to entertain this writ application, which has been
filed after inordinate delay without any cogent explanation and
hence, the writ application is dismissed for delay and laches.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
pravinkumar/-
U
Checking your session…