Patna High Court
Md. Waris AlamversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the recall order was erroneous because the appellate authority failed to consider that the sanctioned post was for an Urdu teacher, and therefore set aside the order, directing re‑examination and possible reinstatement of the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioners, Md. Waris Alam and Md. Nazim Ansari, were appointed as the sole Urdu teacher in Gram Panchayat Ichuakarna, Nawada, pursuant to a District Appellate Authority order. The appointment was later recalled to accommodate respondent No.9, Benu Kumari, despite her being appointed to a different exclusive teaching post. The petitioners appealed to the State Appellate Authority, which upheld the recall without considering that the vacancy was specifically for an Urdu teacher. The High Court found that the appellate authority erred by ignoring this material fact and by lacking evidence that the petitioners failed to appear for counselling. Consequently, the Court set aside the recall order, directed the District Appellate Authority to re‑examine the matter, and ordered reinstatement and appropriate salary if the Urdu vacancy still exists. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the State Appellate Authority erred in upholding the recall of the petitioner’s appointment without considering that the vacancy was for an Urdu teacher.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and salary for the Urdu teacher post.
- Whether the recall order should be set aside on the ground of procedural and factual oversight.
Subjects
- appointment
- reinstatement
- state appellate authority
- Urdu teacher
- public service
- writ petition
- administrative law
- employment
- Panchayat
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1509 of 2019
======================================================
Md. Waris Alam Md. Nazim Ansari Resident of Village-Pakaria, P.S. Hisuwa,
District Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors The State Of Bihar and Ors Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary Primary Education, Department of Human
Resources development Govt. of Bihar Patna
3. The Director Primary Education the Department of Human Resouces
Development Govt. of Bihar Patna
4. The Member, District teacher Appellate Authority Nawada
5. The District Programe Officer, (Establishment) Nawada, District Nawada
6. The Block Development Officer, Nardiganj, Nawada, District Nawada
7. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Khuakarna, Block Nardiganj, P.S. Nardiganj,
Dist. Nawada
8. The Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Ichuakarna Block Nardiganj,
P.S. Nardiganj, Dist. Nawada
9. Benu Kumari Ramchandra Prasad R/o Village Orro, P.S. Nardiganj, Dist.-
Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Raj Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy (Sc13)
Mr. Jai Prabhat Kishore, AC to SC-13
For Respondent No.7 & 8: Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Lalit, Advocate
For Respondent No.9 : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant writ application has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
(i) For quashing the order dated 07.09.2018 issued
Patna High Court CWJC No.1509 of 2019 dt.05-01-2026
2/6
by the Chairperson State Appellate Authority in
Appeal Case No.80/2018 contained in Annexure-
12.
(ii) For commanding the Respondent No.7 and 8 to
appoint the petitioner as Urdu teacher against the
solitary post of Urdu Teacher in Gram Panchayat
Ichuakarna Block Nardiganj, P.S. Nardiganj,
District- Nawada.
(iii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the
petitioner is entitled under law as well as on the
facts of the case.
3. From Annexure-4, it appears that there was only
one sanctioned post of Urdu Teacher, against which the
petitioner was appointed. The District Appellate Authority,
Nawada, vide order contained in Memo No. 161 dated
09.05.2012, had directed the Employment Unit to appoint the
petitioner on the post of Urdu Teacher, and pursuant thereto, the
petitioner was appointed. It is the case of the petitioner that in
order to adjust Respondent No. 9, namely, Benu Kumari, the
petitioner was displaced from the post against which he was
appointed, and at the instance of Respondent No. 9, the District
Appellate Authority recalled its earlier order vide Memo No. 94
dated 18.07.2013.
4. It is next submitted that the petitioner, being
Patna High Court CWJC No.1509 of 2019 dt.05-01-2026
3/6
aggrieved by the order of recall, filed an appeal being Appeal
Case No.80 of 2018, before the State Appellate Authority, which
was finally heard on 07.09.2018. However, without considering
the fact that the petitioner’s appointment was made against the
post of Urdu Teacher and that respondent no. 9, even on transfer
could not have been adjusted, as against the post of Urdu
teacher, which post was being held by the petitioner, this
material aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned
State Appellate Authority. Treating respondent no. 9 as a teacher
appointed against the Urdu subject, the appointment of the
petitioner, made pursuant to the order passed by the District
Appellate Authority, Nawada, as contained in Memo No. 161
dated 09.05.2012, was interfered with, and the said order was
erroneously treated as an error committed and, consequently, the
subsequent order of recall was upheld by the State Appellate
Authority. While doing so, the State Appellate Authority erred in
appreciating the fact that the petitioner, who was initially
appointed pursuant to the order passed by the District Appellate
Authority against a sanctioned post, was alleged not to have
appeared in counselling, whereas there is nothing on record to
show that the petitioner had not appeared. Despite the absence
of any such finding supported by the record, the order recalling
Patna High Court CWJC No.1509 of 2019 dt.05-01-2026
4/6
the original order dated 09.05.2012 was upheld.
5. This Court, vide orders dated 18.11.2025 and
09.12.2025, had directed the Panchayat Secretary to bring on
record the compliance order issued by the Panchayat
Employment Unit, and vide an affidavit dated 19.12.2025 has
submitted, by referring to the records registered relating to the
selection of Panchayat Teacher under Panchayat Unit,
Ichuakarna, Block Nardiganj, P.S. Nardiganj, District Nawada,
it appears that no consequential order of removal of the
petitioner is available on record. It further appears from the
records that there is no mention of issuance of any such order or
decision purportedly taken by the Employment Unit, is said to
have been passed in compliance with the order of the State
Appellate Authority.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent no.
9 submits that respondent no. 9, having participated in the test
conducted for the post of Exclusive Teacher, has already been
declared successful and is working against the said post, and
does not have any dispute with the employment of the petitioner
as against the post of Urdu teacher.
7. Learned counsel for the Panchayat Secretary
submits that the petitioner was the only candidate against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1509 of 2019 dt.05-01-2026
5/6
Urdu subject, which is an undisputed fact.
8. Since the impugned order does not reflect
consideration of these material issues, despite specific pleadings
and the materials available on record showing that the
appointment of respondent no. 9 was not made against the Urdu
subject, whereas the petitioners’ appointment was made against
the post of Urdu Teacher, this material aspect of the matter has
not been considered by the State Appellate Authority.
Accordingly, the order of recall as well as the order of the State
Appellate Authority are hereby set aside.
9. The District Appellate Authority, Nawada, is
directed to re-examine the issues and pass necessary orders
within two months, in light of the fact that respondent no. 09 is
no longer a Panchayat Teacher and has already been appointed
as an Exclusive Teacher; however, the appointment of the
petitioner was made against the Urdu subject, was the sole
candidate against the post, for which the initial engagement was
made pursuant of the direction of the District Appellate
Authority.
10. It goes without saying that if, upon examination
of the records, it appears that the vacancy with respect to the
Urdu subject is still available and there is no impediment in
Patna High Court CWJC No.1509 of 2019 dt.05-01-2026
6/6
directing appointment of the petitioner against the same post on
which the petitioner was working pursuant to the order of the
District Appellate Authority, then the necessary order regarding
the petitioner’s entitlement shall be passed by referring to the
records within the same period.
11. It is made clear that, in view of the fact that
there is no order of removal against the petitioner and that he
has discharged his duties, supported with records, then after
verifying the same, the necessary orders shall also be passed
with regard to his entitlement to salary in light of the decision
taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maan Singh v.
Union of India & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 464; AIR 2003 SC 1800.
12. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands
allowed.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.01.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…