Patna High Court
Md. Akhtar Hussain,versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that because the petitioners have an appropriate statutory remedy of appeal, the writ petition cannot be entertained and is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, two primary school teachers, challenged an order dated 16‑01‑2025 of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority (Araria) which rejected their application to have respondent No. 8 excluded from the opposite‑party list in District Appeal No. 01/2020. They argued that respondent No. 8’s claim was not adverse to theirs and that the respondent was not a necessary party, alleging that they were improperly made respondents to harass them. The State contended that the order was intended to avoid multiplicity of litigation and that the petitioners possessed a statutory remedy of appeal before the State Appellate Authority. The High Court examined the submissions and noted that the petitioners indeed have an appropriate statutory remedy against the impugned order. Consequently, the Court found no ground to entertain the writ petition and disposed of it, while leaving the petitioners free to pursue appeal before the State Appellate Authority.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging the order of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority when a statutory remedy of appeal exists.
- Whether the petitioners are proper parties to the District Appeal and can seek exclusion of respondent No. 8.
- Whether the order should be set aside on the ground of multiplicity of litigation.
Subjects
- writ petition
- statutory remedy
- jurisdiction
- multiplicity of litigation
- education department
- appeal authority
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2741 of 2025
======================================================
1. Md. Akhtar Hussain, Son of- Kafiluddin, Resident of village- Bahura ward
no.-11 P.O-Baraidgah P.S- Amour District- Purnia. Presently Panchayat
Teacher in Primary School Marwa, Bara Istambarar P.S- Jokihat, District-
Araria.
2. Md Arshad Akhter @ Arshad Akhter, Son of-Late Md. Sharif, Resident of
village- Hakka, ward no.-06 P.O-Baraidgah P.S- Amour District- Purnia.
Presently Panchayat teacher in Primary School Pipra, Bara Istambarar P.S-
Jokihat, District- Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer Araria, District- Araria.
4. District Programme Officer (Establishment), District- Araria.
5. District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority (District Authority),
Araria.
6. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Bara Istambarar P.S-Jokihat,
District- Araria.
7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Bara Istambarar, P.S- Jokihat, District-
Araria.
8. Md. Asgar, Son of-Md Akhtar Hussain, Resident of village- Pipra, P.O- Bara
Istambarar P.S- Jokihat District- Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Ziaul Quamar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (24)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 02-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved with the order dated
16.01.2025 passed by the District Teachers Employment
Appellate Authority, Araria whereby the application of the
petitioners to exclude their name from the array of the opposite
Patna High Court CWJC No.2741 of 2025(2) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
party in District Appeal No. 01/2020 filed by the respondent no.
8 came to be rejected.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that
the claim of the respondent no. 8 has not adverse to the claim of
the petitioners and, in fact, they are not the necessary parties,
besides the fact that earlier the respondent no. 8 had approached
before the State Appellate Authority, where the petitioners were
not impleaded as party respondents, but, in order to wreck
vengeance and harass, the petitioners have been made
respondent nos. 1 and 2 in District Appeal No. 01/2020.
4. Learned Advocate for the State submits at the Bar
that from the order impugned it is evident that the petition of the
petitioners came to be rejected in order to avoid the multiplicity
of litigation. Moreover, the petitioners have statutory remedy of
appeal before the State Appellate Authority and this Court ought
not to exercise the jurisdiction in the present matter.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the fact the petitioners has appropriate statutory remedy against
the order impugned, this Court does not find any reason to
entertain the present writ petition; accordingly, the present writ
petition stands disposed off.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2741 of 2025(2) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
6. However, the petitioners are at liberty to assail the
order before the State Appellate Authority, if so advised.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U
Checking your session…