Patna High Court
Urmila KumariversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for lack of merit and for being barred by delay and laches.
Summary
Urmila Kumari, engaged as a Lok Shikshak to teach children aged 6‑14, sought to have her stipendiary post regularised by treating her as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra after the latter class of employees was created and later regularised. The State had abolished the Lok Shikshak post in 2006 and earlier coordinate benches had dismissed similar petitions, holding that the petitioner should have approached the competent authority at the time of her engagement. The Patna High Court observed that the petitioner did not seek parity when the Shiksha Mitra posts were created or when the Lok Shikshak post was abolished, and that the delay and laches barred any equitable relief. While the Court allowed her to file a representation before the Principal Secretary, HRD, it dismissed the writ petition on the merits, finding no cause for relief. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a Lok Shikshak can be treated as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra for purposes of regularisation.
- Whether the Court can direct the creation of an abolished post to grant parity.
- Whether the petition is barred by delay and laches.
Subjects
- Lok Shikshak
- Shiksha Mitra
- regularisation
- writ petition
- delay
- laches
- service law
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1346 of 2017
======================================================
Urmila Kumari W/o Sri Pramod Kumar Ray, R/o Vill- Darwa, Post- Darwa,
Via- Purushootampur, P.S.- Tajpur O.P. Halai, Dist- Samastipur 848505.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, District Samastipur. null null
5. The District Superintendent of Education, District- Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Bal Krishan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, GP-23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
6 18-02-2026 The petitioner was engaged as a Lok Shikshak, on
the basis of Stipend (Mandey), for imparting basic education to
the children between the age of 6 to 14 years. After her
engagement, she was imparted training and thereafter
discharging her duty as Lok Shikshak. Subsequently, by
Resolution No. 1079 dated 20th June, 2002, the Government of
Bihar decided to appoint Shiksha Mitra at Gram Panchayat
Level selected by the jurisdictional Gram Panchayat for
imparting basic education, initially for a period of 11 months.
Subsequently, the period of contract was extended up to three
years. Subsequently by a Resolution No. 1458, dated 11 th
Patna High Court CWJC No.1346 of 2017(6) dt.18-02-2026
2/6
August, 2004, the State Government decided to regularize the
service of Shiksha Mitra against the vacant post of Assistant
Teachers as Panchayat Teachers. The Stipendiary appointment
of Lok Shikshaks was abolished in the year 2006. Some of the
Lok Sikshaks filed several writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C. No.
14493 of 2008 along with other writ petitions and a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court disposed of the same writ petitions by an
order dated 21st March, 2012. The Co-ordinate Bench disposed
of the said writ petitions by passing an analogous order as
hereunder:-
In the considered opinion of this Court,
the solitary prayer made in these writ
applications for treating the Lok Shikshak
equivalent to Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on a
date on which the post of Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra did not remain in existence
seems to be wholly misconceived. The post
of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra came to be
abolished w.e.f 01.07.2006 on which date
all the working Panchayat Shiksha Mitra
were sought to be absorbed as Panchayat
Shikshak. If the petitioners holding the
engagement as Lok Shikshak were
therefore, sought to be discriminated from
the inception by not being given the same
facility as, Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, they
had to move before the competent Authority
at the time of their engagement for seeking
parity with the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1346 of 2017(6) dt.18-02-2026
3/6
That having been not done, this Court
cannot direct for creation of those
abolished post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra
for its being made the basis for providing
equal treatment to Lok Shikshak.
True it is that the highest authorities in
the State at one point of time had
considered the grievance of the petitioners
and had also made some public
announcement as appears from the
newspaper cuttings enclosed with the writ
application but then these newspaper
cuttings in isolation cannot be made the
basis for issuance of a direction specially
when this Court does not find that the post
of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and the post of
Lok Shikshak was same and similar.
Everything apart, if the Government,
however, had at any point of time thought it
necessary to consider the cases of the Lok
Shikshak and also if the petitioners can
demonstrate that the promise made by the
State and its officials would create
estoppel, they can still satisfy the State
Government that having made the
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as a Panchayat
Teacher by framing of the rules similar
provisions could have been made for the
Lok Shikshak. It is this aspect of the matter
which has been decided by the Apex court
in its judgment in the case of Surya Narain
Yadav vs The Bihar State Electricity
Board and Ors reported in AIR 1985 SC
Patna High Court CWJC No.1346 of 2017(6) dt.18-02-2026
4/6
941.
Thus if there be any promise on the
part of the State Government as with
regard to Lok Shikshak as is being claimed
by the petitioners they would at least be
entitled for reconsideration of their cases.
Considering all these aspects, this
Court, without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the claim of the petitioners,
would give them liberty to file their
representation before the Principal
Secretary of the Human Resources
Development Department, Bihar, who in
the light of the scheme of the Government
as with regard to the earlier abolished post
of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and the post of
Lok Shikshak will place the matter before
the State Government and obtain necessary
orders as with regard to extending the same
facility of the post of Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra to the Lok Shikshak.
With the aforementioned observations
and directions, these applications are
disposed of.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the similar relief by
filing the instant writ petition in the year 2017.
3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner refers
to a judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in C.W.J.C. No.
6881 of 2020 and C.W.J.C. No. 6721 of 2020, wherein and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1346 of 2017(6) dt.18-02-2026
5/6
wherunder by an order dated 28th March, 2025, the Co-ordinate
Bench disposed of the above-mentioned writ petitions in the
light of the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14493 of 2008
(Bihar Pradesh Lok Shikshak Sangh & Ors. v. The State of
Bihar & Ors) (and other analogous cases) directing the
Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department to consider
the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the judgment
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14493 of 2008 and disposed of the
individual representations filed on behalf of the petitioners
expeditiously in accordance with law.
4. It is needless to say that the judgment passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 6881 of 2020 and another
case does not have any pointing effect upon this Court. It has
only a persuasive value.
5. Be that as it may, the petitioner was engaged as Lok
Shikshak prior to 2002, her service came to an end in the year
2006. In the year 2002, a new class of employees, namely,
Shiksha Mitra came into existence at Panchayat level. The
petitioner did not take any step either in 2002 when the posts of
Shiksha Mitra came to existence or in 2006 when the posts of
Lok Shikshaks were abolished or in 2012 and 2013 immediately
after disposal of C.W.J.C. No. 14493 of 2008.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1346 of 2017(6) dt.18-02-2026
6/6
6. Thus, the instant writ petition suffers from delay
and latches. When a person claims an equitable right in writ
jurisdiction he/she must be vigilant about his/her
fundamental/legal right. If he/she sits on the fence and comes
forward only after a considerable period of delay experiencing
the fate of his/her colleagues, the writ Court shall refrain from
granting any relief to the petitioner.
7. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any
merit in the instant writ petition.
8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed
on contest.
9. However, there shall no order as to cost.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Jyoti Kumari/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.