Pratima KumariversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5735 of 2019
                 ======================================================
                 Pratima Kumari W/o Santosh Kumar Choubey Vill.- Khori pakar, P.o.-
                 Kritpur Matia, P.s.- Harshidhi, Distt.- East Champaran

                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resource
                 Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, patna
           2.    The Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna
           3.    The District Magistrate East Champaran at Motihari
           4.    The District Education Officer East Champaran
           5.    The District Programme Officer, Establishment East Champaran, Motihari
           6.    The Block Development Officer Areraj Block, East Champran
           7.    The Block Education Officer Areraj Block, East Champaran
           8.    The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj Chatiya Barharwa, Block
                 Harsiddhi, Distt.- East Champaran
           9.    The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Chatiya Barharwa, Harsiddhi Block, East
                 Champaran
           10. Gulerana W/o Raisul Azam Vill.- Chatia Tola Math, P.s.- Malahi, distt.- East
               Champaran

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s   :      Mr. Subash Chandra Mishra (SC-16 )
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

9   12-01-2026                    Upon filing of the writ petition, this matter was

                   heard for the first time on 27.03.2019, when this Court had

                   issued notice to the respondent Nos.8 to 10, pursuant to which,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5735 of 2019(9) dt.12-01-2026
                                           2/10




          they are said to have been appeared and on the categorical

          statement made in paragraph 28 of the writ petition to the effect

          that the petitioner is working hence, he be granted protection.

                      2. In such view of the matter, status quo existing as on

          the date, qua the service conditions of the petitioner, was

          directed to be maintained till disposal of the instant case. This

          matter was heard on 25.06.2019 and fresh notices were directed

          to be issued upon respondent No.8 and matter was directed to be

          listed after receipt of the notice on 22.07.2019.

                      3. After almost six years of the last hearing, when

          status quo was granted, this matter was taken up on 02.09.2025,

          on which date, at the instance of the learned counsel for the

          petitioner, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, this matter was

          taken on 16.09.2025 and at the instance of the petitioner, to file

          rejoinder which is under preparation, the matter was again

          adjourned. On 22.09.2025, upon hearing the parties, the

          respondent-State was directed to take instructions with regard to

          the decision taken in respect of the dispute raised questioning

          the validity of the degree obtained from Navbharat Shiksha

          Parishad, Orissa, and the matter was directed to be listed for

          further consideration on 03.11.2025.

                      4. On 04.11.2025, the matter was again taken up for
Patna High Court CWJC No.5735 of 2019(9) dt.12-01-2026
                                           3/10




          further consideration and looking to the nature of dispute, the

          counsel for the State was directed to take instructions with

          regard to the status of compliance made pursuant to the

          directions issued to the State Government by the Hon’ble

          Division Bench in the case of Ritesh Kumar v. The State of

          Bihar and Others in L.P.A. No.1347 of 2014, to take a final

          decision with regard to the Institute, namely, Navbharat Shiksha

          Parishad, Orissa, whether being a recognized Institution in

          context of issuing certificates for intermediate degree, based on

          which the petitioner is said to have been appointed on the post

          of Panchayat Shikshak advertised by the State Government and

          by way of last indulgence, the learned counsel for the State was

          granted two weeks time to seek appropriate instructions with

          regard to the steps taken for verification of recognition of

          Institute in question, in the light of Hon’ble Division Bench

          order passed in aforesaid appeal.

                      5. Learned counsel for the State, pursuant to the order

          passed by this Court, by referring to paragraph 10 of the counter

          affidavit filed thereof, and the decision contained in Annexure-

          R/A, submits that the decision has been taken by the Director,

          Primary Education, showing compliance of the order dated

          08.07.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No.5121 of 2016, keeping in row
Patna High Court CWJC No.5735 of 2019(9) dt.12-01-2026
                                           4/10




          the directions issued by the Division Bench in the case of Ritesh

          Kumar (supra) and the decision so taken is kept in Memo

          No.146 dated 03.02.2016, forming part of the said counter

          affidavit, and accordingly, submissions have been made that the

          issues were examined at the level of the State Government and,

          on detailed scrutiny and deliberations so made, it has been

          found that the degree so obtained from Navbharat Shiksha

          Parishad, Orissa, is not a recognized institution and such

          degrees have also not been approved by the State Government

          and, hence, the writ petitioner is not entitled to get any relief

          sought in the writ petition.

                      6. From the statements / pleadings made in the writ

          petition at Para-18, it is quite evident that the challenge to the

          impugned order has been made only on the basis of knowledge

          of the petitioner that till the date of filing of the writ petition, the

          intermediate degree so obtained from the Institution in question,

          has not been put in the category of Fake Institution, while the

          fact is otherwise, which would be evident from the decision of

          State Government, kept in Memo No.146 dated 03.02.2016.

                      7. Despite the fact that the authorities of the

          Department of Education, who being competent in law, have

          already taken a decision, wherein, it has categorically been
Patna High Court CWJC No.5735 of 2019(9) dt.12-01-2026
                                           5/10




          mentioned that the Navbharat Shiksha Parishad, Orissa, is not a

          recognized Institution and the degree obtained from such

          Institution cannot be treated to be valid for appointment on the

          post of Teacher, still, at the request of the learned counsel for the

          petitioner, on 18.11.2025, this Court granted one opportunity to

          approach the authority to satisfy them with his prudence and

          display his bona fide for consideration, in making review of the

          decision dated 03.02.2016.

                      8. This order dated 18.11.2025 was passed strictly in

          terms of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No.5121 of 2016 dated

          28.06.2016, in the presence of the learned counsel for the

          parties, directing the petitioner to appear before the Principal

          Secretary, Department of Education, for carrying out the

          exercise, which is said to have been directed in the case of

          similarly situated persons, for appropriate decision, who would

          be presenting himself with all necessary documents for

          adjudication of his claim in terms of the issues framed by this

          Court and, a time-line was also fixed for its adjudication.

                        9. Today, when this matter was called for hearing,

          when the authorities of the Department of Education, including

          the petitioner, were supposed to apprise this Court with regard

          to the decision so taken on appearance of the petitioner with all
Patna High Court CWJC No.5735 of 2019(9) dt.12-01-2026
                                           6/10




          necessary documents, but the State counsel apprised this Court

          that the petitioner did not appear before the Principal Secretary,

          Department of Education, for adjudication of the dispute for

          which indulgence was sought by the petitioner, and on the other

          hand, with the change of counsel, a very obnoxious prayer was

          made for revision / modification of the order, by clarifying as to

          where this petitioner was supposed to appear for getting his

          claim adjudicated.

                      10. Since, the entire order dated 18.11.2025 was based

          on an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in C.W.J.C.

          No.5121 of 2016, wherein, the directions for authoritative

          decision was issued to Principal Secretary, Department of

          Education, Government of Bihar, as such, the attempt to further

          delay the matter, so made, on behalf of the petitioner with the

          change of counsel, was not acceptable as the earlier counsel,

          who had represented this petitioner, had made his categorical

          submission that this matter may also be directed to be

          considered by the authorities, who were bestowed with the

          responsibility to take a final decision, in view of the direction

          issued by the Co-ordinate Bench in case of Menka Mishra v.

          The State of Bihar and Others, passed in C.W.J.C. No.5121 of

          2016 and accordingly, there was no reason for the petitioner to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5735 of 2019(9) dt.12-01-2026
                                           7/10




          have made such prayer, as the direction issued by this Court for

          his appearance was very loud and clear and as such the conduct

          and prayer of the petitioner with the change of counsel, has

          categorically been opposed by the counsel for the State as well

          as the private respondent, that it is dilatory tactics, being

          adopted by the petitioner, to buy time in this case, while the

          petitioner is aware that there is no escape from the fact that the

          Institute in question, has already been placed in the category of

          Fake Institute, with the detailed decision taken by the State,

          which is contained in Annexure R/A to the supplementary

          counter affidavit.

                      11. The law is well settled that recall / modification or

          review application can be filed only by the counsel, who has

          argued the case and not by the counsel, who is substituted in his

          place or engaged after the orders were passed. The Hon’ble

          Apex Court, has deprecated such act of changing the counsel for

          preferring modification or review of order of the kind and the

          judgment rendered in the cases of Salem Advocate Bar

          Association (II) v. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC

          344 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another v. N. Raju

          Reddiar and Another, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1005, may be

          referred, which categorically held that with the change of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5735 of 2019(9) dt.12-01-2026
                                           8/10




          counsel, the prayer for review / recall or modification is

          impermissible and the manner in which the petitioner has

          changed the counsel, for making prayer of the kind, is highly

          deprecated, and as the act of the petitioner clearly shows that the

          entire focus of his, is to purchase time, and such prayer of his, is

          being very seriously opposed by the State counsel as well as the

          private respondent, as this matter has remained pending for

          almost 7 years before this Hon’ble Court and the act of dilatory

          tactics, gets supported from the designed act of adopting a

          method to purchase time, by changing his earlier counsel; which

          is not acceptable as the same cannot be the given sanction of

          law, and accordingly, such prayer is rejected.

                      12. In view of the fact that the authorities have

          already adjudicated the disputed issues in relation to degree in

          question by taking appropriate decision, as contained in Memo

          No.164 dated 03.02.2016, which is appended with the counter

          affidavit as Annexure-R/A, and the decision so taken has also

          not been challenged by any of the aggrieved parties including

          this petitioner, and further, the opportunity so extended to the

          petitioner having not been availed, wherein, this Court intended

          to provide one opportunity of hearing to this petitioner to

          ventilate his grievances by satisfying the authorities, with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5735 of 2019(9) dt.12-01-2026
                                           9/10




          available materials, if any, for reviewing the decision dated

          03.02.2016 so taken by the State and there being no such

          material placed on record by the petitioner to tinker with the

          same and looking to the nature of dispute, which is pending

          since the year 2013, wherein for the first time, the District

          Appellate Authority, East Champaran, Motihari, is said to have

          passed an order on the subject in issue, which was further put to

          challenge before the State Appellate Authority, and thereafter by

          filing the instant writ petition in the year 2019, and since then,

          the matter is pending, while the issues have already been

          adjudicated by the authorities, pursuant to the directions issued

          by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Ritesh Kumar

          (supra), this Court, taking into account, the decision so taken

          where the authorities have categorically held that the degree

          obtained from Navbharat Shiksha Parishad, Orissa, is not valid

          for appointment, proceeds to adjudicate the issue raised by the

          petitioner and decide the same in consonance with the decision

          so taken by the State Government.

                      13. Considering the above, the relief so prayed by this

          petitioner in the instant writ petition is wholly unsustainable in

          law and is accordingly, dismissed by affirming the order dated

          20.02.2019 passed by the State Appellate Authority, Education
           Patna High Court CWJC No.5735 of 2019(9) dt.12-01-2026
                                                     10/10




                     Department, Bihar, Patna, and it is also made clear that the

                     status quo granted vide order dated 27.03.2019 by this Court,

                     which also merges with the final order, therefore, the authorities

                     are under legal obligation to take appropriate steps for carrying

                     out of the order dated 28.02.2019 to its logical end, in

                     accordance with law.

                                 14. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid

                     observations / directions.



                                                  (Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-

U