Patna High Court

Nitu DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: AJIT KUMAR

Holding

The Court directed the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority and ordered the authority to decide the matter within two months if the representation is found fit, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

Summary

Nitu Devi filed a writ petition seeking a direction that the Bihar Education Department appoint her as Block Teacher in a middle school where a vacancy had arisen after the previous appointee, Shobha Kumari, was terminated for obtaining the post by impersonation. The petitioner argued that she was legally entitled to the post and should be considered for appointment if she meets the eligibility criteria. The Court examined the petition and, without expressing any view on the merits, ordered the petitioner to submit a representation before the competent authority. The Court further directed that, if the representation is found fit, the authority must decide the matter within two months by a reasoned order. Consequently, the writ application was disposed of with these procedural directions.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is legally entitled to be appointed to the vacant Block Teacher post after the termination of the previous appointee.
Whether the Court can direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation and decide within a specified time.

Subjects

appointment
impersonation
block teacher
writ jurisdiction
representation
vacancy
public service appointment

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1665 of 2026
                 ======================================================
                 Nitu Devi Wife of Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Resident of Village- Mathiya,
                 Police Station- Basantpur, District- Siwan.

                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
                 Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
           2.    The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
                 Patna.
           3.    The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
                 Patna.
           4.    The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
           5.    The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra.
           6.    The District Programme Officer (Estd), Saran at Chapra.
           7.    The Block Development Officer-cum-Secretary, Block Teacher Employment
                 Unit, Baniapur, Saran at Chapra.
           8.    Block Education Officer, Baniapur, Saran at Chapra.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Prabhat Kumar
                 For the Respondent/s   :      Standing Counsel 11
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   02-02-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned counsel for the respondents.

                               2. The instant writ application has been filed seeking a

                   direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner

                   to the post of Block Teacher in Middle School, Mauja–Goa,

                   Baniapur, Saran.

                               3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

                   submits that, on the petitioner’s complaint, an enquiry was
           Patna High Court CWJC No.1665 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     instituted, and one Shobha Kumari, wife of Anil Kumar Sharma,

                     who had been appointed against the post to which the petitioner

                     was legally entitled, was terminated from service upon it being

                     found that she had obtained the appointment by impersonation.

                                 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, since the vacancy

                     has now arisen and she was originally entitled to be appointed, the

                     respondents may be directed to consider her case, if she is

                     otherwise eligible in accordance with law.

                                 5. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to

                     submit an appropriate representation before the competent

                     authority. If the petitioner’s case is found fit for consideration on

                     its own merits, the same shall be considered and decided within a

                     period of two months from the date of receipt of such

                     representation, by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

                                 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any

                     opinion on the merits of the case, and the authorities are at liberty

                     to examine the facts and the law before passing any order on the

                     representation so filed by the petitioner.

                                 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the

                     instant writ application stands disposed of.



                                                             (Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…