Patna High Court
Om Prakash PathakversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner was not qualified for the post and the concurrent appellate findings render the relief legally untenable.
Summary
The petitioner, Om Prakash Pathak, filed a writ petition challenging his appointment as Panchayat Teacher, alleging that the original application form was not produced and that costs were awarded against the Block Education Extension Officer. The State contended that the petitioner lacked the mandatory qualification of a trained teacher's certificate at the time of appointment, and that the appointment had been consistently challenged before the District and State Appellate Authorities, which recorded concurrent findings against him. The petitioner could not produce the application form, which was unavailable after 21 years, and admitted the lack of requisite qualification. The Court held that, given the admission of ineligibility and the existing adverse findings, the relief sought was not maintainable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- What is the legal effect of the absence of the original application form on the validity of the appointment?
- Did the petitioner possess the requisite qualification of a trained teacher at the time of appointment?
- Are the concurrent findings of the District and State Appellate Authorities sufficient to bar the petitioner's relief?
Subjects
- appointment
- qualification
- Panchayat Teacher
- writ jurisdiction
- administrative law
- eligibility
- appellate authority
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6445 of 2021
======================================================
Om Prakash Pathak S/o - Sri Bhola Pathak R/o Village - Sohanariya, P.S. -
Kateya, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gopalganj.
3. The Block Education Extension Officer, Panchdaori, Gopalganj.
4. The Block Pramukh- cum - President, Selection Committee, Panchadeori,
Gopalganj.
5. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Majhwaliya, Gopalganj.
6. The Panchayat Secetary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Majhwaliya, Gopalganj.
7. The Head Master, Utkramit Madhya Vidhyalaya, Majhwaliya, Gopalganj.
8. The Member, District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Gopalganj.
9. Vinay Shankar Dubey, Assistant Teacher Buniyadi Vidyalaya, Gopalganj.
10. Hare Ram Tiwary S/o - not known, Prakhand Shikshak, Utkramit Madhya
Vidyalaya, Manjhawalia (Panchadeori), P.S. - Kateya, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Abhanjali, AC to GA-12
Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar
Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
13 20-01-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
despite best efforts, the original application form pursuant to
which the appointment is said to have been made has not been
brought on record by the authorities. Owing to such inability to
Patna High Court CWJC No.6445 of 2021(13) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
produce the said application form, costs have even been
awarded against the Block Education Extension Officer,
Panchdaori, by the State Appellate Authority, Patna.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
submits that even if the application form pursuant to which the
appointment is said to have been made is made available, which
is presently not the case and is not available with the
employment unit owing to the lapse of almost 21 years from the
date of initial appointment, the fact remains that this petitioner
could not have been legally appointed to the post of Panchayat
Teacher, while the eligibility for the said post was that of a
trained teacher, a certificate to that effect, which admittedly this
petitioner did not possess, and the appointment, which is said to
have been given pursuant to the order passed by the District
Appellate Authority, along with the appointment of respondent
no. 10, Hare Ram Tiwari, has consistently been put under
challenge before the authorities, including the District Appellate
Authority and the State Appellate Authority, and the order under
challenge records a concurrent finding against this petitioner for
which there is no plausible explanation.
4. Be that as it may, since the petitioner admittedly did
not possess the requisite qualification on the date of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6445 of 2021(13) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
appointment, as stated in his own pleadings, this Court is not
inclined to proceed further with the challenge raised. The relief
sought is legally not maintainable in view of the concurrent
findings recorded by the District Appellate Authority and the
State Appellate Authority.
5. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U
Checking your session…