Patna High Court
Sanju KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court directed the District Appellate Authority to determine the actual vacancy position and re‑adjudicate the petitioner’s claim on its own merit.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanju Kumari, a Panchayat Teacher, challenged her termination and alleged that a second vacancy for the Backward Class (BC) Female category existed, which should have been considered for her appointment. The State authorities presented conflicting affidavits: one indicating two BC‑Female vacancies in 2006, another stating only one vacancy, which had already been filled by another teacher. The petitioner argued that the District Appellate Authority had not properly examined the vacancy position and had erred in dismissing her claim. The High Court noted the conflict, referred to the Apex Court’s decision in Renu Kumari v. Abha Kumari, and directed the District Appellate Authority to re‑adjudicate the matter on its merits after ascertaining the true vacancy status. The Court ordered the matter be concluded within the statutory time‑limit and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a second vacancy for the Backward Class (BC) Female category existed in 2006 for the petitioner’s appointment.
- Whether the termination of the petitioner’s service was effected without following the prescribed legal procedures.
- Whether the District Appellate Authority must re‑examine the petitioner’s claim independently of its earlier order.
Subjects
- appointment
- reservation
- Backward Class
- Female category
- vacancy
- termination
- writ petition
- primary education
- district appellate authority
- merit
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5101 of 2020
======================================================
Sanju Kumari Daughter of Sri Jailal Rai Wife of Sri Subhash Chandra residence of Village
and Post-office- Tajpur, Police-Station- Manjhi, District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Primary Education Govt. of Bihar at Patna.
2. The Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar at Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
4. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra.
5. The District Program Officer, Primary Education Saran at Chapra.
6. The Program Officer, Pirmary Education Saran at Chapra.
7. The Block Education Officer Manjhi, District- Saran at Chapra.
8. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Tajpur, Police- Station- Manjhi, District- Saran at
Chapra.
9. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj Tajpur, Police-Station, District- Saran at
Chapra.
10. Arti Kumari, Wife of Harendra Kumar, Resident of Village- Asharam Tajpur, Gandhi
Ashram Tajpur, Post Office- (Phulwariya ) Tajpur, Police Station- Manjhi, District- Saran.
At Present Posted and working as a Panchayat Teacher in Govt. Kanya Primary School,
Tajpur, Block- Manjhi, District- Saran. ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Adv.
Mr. Shambhu Prasad Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Roy 1 (Sc13)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
15 03-02-2026 Heard Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, learned counsel for
the petitioner duly assisted by Mr. Shambhu Pd Yadav and
learned counsel representing Respondent-State.
2. From the order passed by the District Appellate
Authority, Saran in Case No. 18/2012, it appears that the
appointment process which were carried out in the year 2006,
with respect to this petitioner and other similarly situated
persons including the Private Respondent remained under
litigation till 2019, while, the State Appellate Authority, had the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5101 of 2020(15) dt.03-02-2026
2/8
occasion to pass order dated 16.05.2019 in Case No.
Appeal/68/2018 (Sanju Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors),
said to have been preferred by this petitioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she after having
litigated for more than seven years, finally, this petitioner was
taken back in the service and she joined upgraded Middle
School, Jhakhara on 16.09.2013 and continued to discharge her
duties till 22.06.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that without
resorting to the procedures prescribed in law, the termination
was effected and the issues travelled before the State Appellate
Authority, in which, the challenge to the termination was made
by this petitioner, wherein the specific ground was taken by this
petitioner that there are two posts for Backward Class (BC)
Female (F) Category and the petitioner’s case could have been
considered, even though, Respondent No.10/ Arti Kumari is
appointed as against the vacancy Backward Class (BC) Female
(F) Category, and the second vacancy could have been made
available to this petitioner for appointment.
4. The submissions which have been made with
regard to vacancy in Backward Class (BC) Female (F) Category
is referable to the counter affidavit, which is said to have been
filed by the Block Education Officer, Manjhi in Case No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5101 of 2020(15) dt.03-02-2026
3/8
Appeal/68/2018, before the State Appellate Authority, Patna in
which, there has been candid statement on behalf of the
deponent that two posts are available with respect to the
Backward Class (BC) Female (F) Category. The extract of
paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“5. That with regard to the
statements made in paragraph no.7(ii) of the
memo of appeal is conern it is to be
submitted that the same is matter of record
(Annexure-1,4,11 and 13 of the memo of
appeal), in the year 2006, 27 vacancies of
Panchayat Teacher were made available to
Gram Panchayat Raj Tajpur, Manjhi for
appointment out of which 6 posts were
unreserved, 7 posts were unreserved female,
2 posts were for Most Backward, 3 posts
were for Most Backward female, 3 posts
were for Schedule Caste, 2 posts were for
Schedule Cast Female, 2 posts were for
Backward, 2 posts were for Backward
Female”.
5. The petitioner’s grievances could not be
adjudicated before the State Appellate Authority leading to
filing of the instant writ petition with similar grievance that this
petitioner does not challenge the appointment of Respondent
No.10 and her case is that the petitioner being next to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5101 of 2020(15) dt.03-02-2026
4/8
Respondent No.10 and there being two posts under Backward
Class (BC) Female (F) Category, the case of this petitioner
could have been considered but the State Appellate Authority,
who did not consider her entitlement by keeping in row the fact
that her appointment on the said post by employment unit was
made against the vacancies, upon which the petitioner is said to
have discharge the duties from 16.09.2013 to 22.06.2015.
6. With similar plea, the petitioner has sought
intervention of this Court wherein, specific statement was made
that there are two vacancies under Backward Class (BC) Female
(F) Category, still the case of the petitioner has not been
considered by the State Appellate Authority and this Court being
persuaded by the submission made on behalf of the petitioner,
accordingly, called upon the State to file appropriate affidavit
with respect to the vacancy position. A counter affidavit is said
to have been filed by the Respondents No. 4 to 7 duly sworn by
the Block Education Officer, Manjhi and there is categorical
statement that as against Backward Class (BC) Female (F)
Category, there is only one post.
7. The stand so taken before this Court, is in conflict
with the stand taken by the person with same designation, who
sworn affidavit before the State Appellate Authority. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.5101 of 2020(15) dt.03-02-2026
5/8
statement so made in the counter affidavit is reproduced
hereunder:-
“ 5. That the total 27 vacancies of
Panchayat Teacher in Gram Panchayat Tajpur,
under Manjhi Block in the first phase of Panchayat
Employment Teacher-2006. The District Education
Officer, Saran vide letter No. 2320 dated
28.09.2006 whereby roaster has been allotted
under different category which are as follows:-
(1) Unreserved (UR)-06
(J) UR (F)-07
(K) EBC-03
(L)EBC (F)-03
(M) SC-03
(N) SC (F)-02
(O)BC-02
(P) BC (F)-01
(Q) Reserve (F)-01
Total-27
6. That on the basis of said roaster, the
Panchayat Employment Unit made the employment
of Panchayat Teacher. From the above roaster, it is
evident that out of 27 vacancies, one post was
earmark for BC (F) category and against said post
one Arati Kumari (Respondent No. 10) was
employed and as such there is no vacancy in BC
(F) category.”
8. The State counsel, on being confronted with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5101 of 2020(15) dt.03-02-2026
6/8
conflicting stand taken by the same authority, submits that he
may be allowed to take appropriate instruction in this case to
come back with appropriate response with respect to the
conflict, which has arisen before this Court in the instant case.
9. The prayer of the State counsel is not being
acceded for the simple reason that this matter is pending since
2020 and even though some response is fetched from the State
Counsel with regard to the conflicting stand, the adjudication
with regard to the disputed issues are required to be made by the
authority by referring to the records and only then, the nature of
dispute which is raised by this petitioner can be given quietus,
as the appointment pertains to the year 2006 and the petitioner
who has been claiming her entitlement on the basis of the
qualification, which she possesses and after having litigated for
more than seven years, the petitioner was given appointment,
which, subsequently, been terminated, leading to filing of the
aforesaid cases. These glaring facts persuades this Court to issue
appropriate direction to the District Appellate Authority to
adjudicate the claim of this petitioner on merit, without being
influenced by the order passed by the District Appellate
Authority and as also by the State Appellate Authority keeping
in row the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5101 of 2020(15) dt.03-02-2026
7/8
case of Renu Kumari v. Abha Kumari & Ors passed in Civil
Appeal No.(s) 5414 of 2016, where, the matters of similar
nature, wherein the interference was given to the disputed
appointment of the year, 2006 keeping in mind the facts that the
meritorious person, who has the qualification and the eligibility
to hold such posts, their rights should not be prejudiced in any
manner.
10. Considering the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex
Court, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the District
Appellate Authority to adjudicate the claim of this petitioner on
its own merit after examining the vacancy position as the stand
so taken by the authority of the same designation filed an
affidavit, which is in conflict with the earlier affidavit filed
before the State Appellate Authority, which order is under
challenge, and as such, once the vacancy position is ascertained,
then the appropriate steps with regard to adjudication of
the claim of this petitioner shall be made on its merit,
and the entire exercise shall be concluded within the time
limit so prescribed in the statute by putting on notice, all
such Government Officials, who would be relevant / necessary
parties to the proceeding, and by securing appearance /
presence of the suitable / appropriate candidate of her
category, if required, to give quietus to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5101 of 2020(15) dt.03-02-2026
8/8
entire dispute, for doing complete justice in the matter, which is
to be initiated pursuant to the direction issued by this Court.
11. The writ petition with the aforesaid direction and
observation stands disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U
Checking your session…