Patna High Court
Sonam KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the State Appellate Authority acted without jurisdiction in cancelling the petitioner’s appointment and ordering retrospective termination and salary recovery, and therefore set aside the order and directed her reinstatement.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonam Kumari, was appointed as a Panchayat Teacher in 2022 based on a merit list that later was found to contain a miscalculation of her marks. The District Appellate Authority allowed her claim for salary, but the State Appellate Authority later cancelled her appointment retrospectively and ordered recovery of salary, citing the merit‑list error. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction, especially in the absence of a judicial member, and that retrospective termination and salary recovery were illegal. The High Court examined the statutory limits of the State Appellate Authority, the principle that termination cannot be back‑dated, and the lack of any fraud by the petitioner. It held that the appellate authority acted beyond its jurisdiction and set aside the cancellation order, directing reinstatement of the petitioner pending further lawful determination.
Issues considered
- Whether the State Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to cancel the appointment and order retrospective termination in the absence of a judicial member.
- Whether retrospective termination of service and recovery of salary already drawn are legally permissible.
- Whether the petitioner is liable for the merit‑list miscalculation and can be deemed to have connived in the error.
- Whether the State Appellate Authority exceeded its statutory jurisdiction by deciding matters beyond the four corners of the appeal.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and continuation of service.
Subjects
- appointment
- retrospective termination
- jurisdiction
- state appellate authority
- merit list miscalculation
- reinstatement
- Article 226
- public service law
- education department
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9257 of 2024
======================================================
Sonam Kumari W/o Pinkesh Kumar, D/o Dani Prasad Yadav R/o Village-
Nathpur, P.O.- and P.S.- Saur Bazar, District- Saharsa.
... ... 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 Department of Education Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Saharsa.
4. The District Programme Officer (Est.) Saharsa.
5. The Block Education officer, Block Saur Bazar, District Saharsa.
6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj- Kadhaiya, Block- Saur
Bazar, District- Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shambhu Sharan Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Vartika K Kashyap, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-01-2026
Heard Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Shambhu Sharan Kumar, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Ms. Vartika K Kashyap, learned Advocate for
the State.
2. Challenge in the present writ petition is made to an
order dated 24.05.2024 passed in Appeal/T-284/2023 by the
learned State Appellate Authority, Education Department, Bihar,
Patna whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent Block
Education Officer, Saur Bazar, Saharsa was allowed and set-
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
2/17
aside the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the District Teachers
Appellate Authorities, Saharsa in Appeal Case No. 08/2023 and
the appointment of the petitioner has been canceled
retrospectively from the date of appointment itself and further
direction was given to make recovery of the amount paid to the
petitioner till date.
3. Briefly stated, the petitioner applied for the post of
Panchayat Teacher under BC(F) category in Kadhaiya Gram
Panchayat in the year 2019-2020, in terms with Bihar Panchayat
Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules,
2012 (hereinafter referred to as, “Rules, 2012”). After
completing all the procedure, a final merit list was published
and the name of the petitioner figured at Sl. No. 26 along with
others under BC category. Based on the merit position,
counseling was done and finally the petitioner was selected as
Panchayat Teacher on 26.02.2022 vide Memo No. 01.
4. Despite the petitioner having been duly appointed
when she was not paid her salary, filed Appeal Case No.
08/2023 before the learned District Appellate Authority,
Saharsa. The District Appellate Authority, Saharsa vide its order
dated 06.06.2023 allowed the appeal holding that the
appointment of the petitioner has been made on the basis of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
3/17
valid academic certificates in terms with relevant rules.
Moreover, the petitioner has been regularly discharging her duty
and none of the candidate has ever challenged or objected the
selection of the petitioner, the District Appellate Authority held
the petitioner entitled for salary and other benefits. It was
further observed that if there was any irregularity in preparation
of merit list action, if any, should be taken against the concerned
officers for wrong calculation of merit points in terms of Memo
No. 998 dated 22.09.2021, issued by the Education Department,
Government of Bihar.
5. Aggrieved, the Panchayat Secretary filed a review
application against the order passed by the District Appellate
Authority, Saharsa. However, it also came to be rejected vide
order dated 30.06.2023. In the meanwhile, since the Block
Education Officer as well as Panchayat Secretary have also
come out with letters restraining the petitioner from discharging
her duties, the same were also set-aside. The Block Education
Officer, Saur Bazar, Saharsa dissatisfied with the order passed
by the District Appellate Authority preferred Case No.
Appeal/T-284/2023 before the learned State Appellate Authority
and accordingly, the impugned order came to be passed which is
put to challenge by filing the present writ petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
4/17
6. Learned Senior Advocate while assailing the
impugned order has canvassed manifold submissions inter alia
that no-one should be punished for the mistake committed by
others and no-one can be allowed to take advantage of their own
mistake and conveniently pass on the blame to the others and, as
such, the justice demands that the petitioner’s case should be
considered sympathetically by this Court. To strengthen the
aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions
rendered in the case of Mohammed Gazi Vs. State of M.P. &
Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 342; A.K. Lakshmipathy (Dead) & Ors. Vs.
Rai Saheb Pannalal H. Lahoti Charitable Trust & Ors. (2010)
1 SCC 287 and Rekha Mukherjee Vs. Ashis Kumar Das &
Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 427.
7. It is further contended that on bare perusal of the
final merit list, it is evident that the then employment unit has
committed mistake and wrongly calculated the merit points of
not only the petitioner, but also of many other candidates. On
account of such miscalculation, the petitioner’s marks was
shown as 73.07%, placing her at Sl. No. 26 whereas her actual
marks were 59.18% to be placed at Rank 111. It is unfortunate
that for the miscalculation of merit marks, the petitioner has
been penalized and the concerned employment unit/authorities
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
5/17
has been left scot free, irrespective of the letter issued by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government
of Bihar contained in Memo No. 998 dated 22.09.2021, that
action can be taken against the candidate only in the case of
producing forged certificates and for all other issues pertaining
to selection process, it is the employment unit/authorities who
are answerable and liable.
8. The petitioner was the sole candidate, who
appeared in the counseling and the employment unit following
all the process of verification of documents and counseling have
closed the counseling register and thus, there remains no dispute
that the petitioner had participated in the counseling and got
selected. There was no objection against the selection of the
petitioner by any of the candidate. Hence, the finding of the
State Appellate Authority that the selection of the petitioner has
caused prejudice to the right of third party does not get
substantiated. The learned State Appellate Authority has
travelled beyond the lis and directed to cancel the appointment
of the petitioner whereas, the petitioner had approached the
learned District Appellate Authority for non-payment of salary
and on this score also, the impugned order is unsustainable.
9. Learned Senior Advocate next contended that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
6/17
law is well settled that there cannot be retrospective termination
of a person. Moreover, the State Appellate Authority has
committed a wrong while directing for recovery of the payment
made to the petitioner as it is not the case of the employment
unit that the petitioner has committed any fraud. Further in
absence of judicial member, learned Appellate Authority has had
no jurisdiction to decide the issue. This issue has been dealt with
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 17508 of
2021, where the Court in identical circumstances, on being
found that the order has been passed by the Member
Administrative has set-aside the order and remitted the matter
for fresh determination. To support the aforesaid contention,
further reliance has also been placed on a decision reported in
Shobha Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., (2025) 4 PLJR
1 that in absence of Judicial Chairperson, any order passed by
learned State Appellate Authority is without jurisdiction.
10. Learned Senior Advocate while concluding her
submissions further contended that the Block Education Officer,
has no power and authority to assail the order of the District
Appellate Authority and if there was any objection with regard
to appointment of the petitioner, it is the employment unit, being
an autonomous body vested with right to sue on its behalf, who
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
7/17
may prefer the appeal before the State Appellate Authority. In
any case, the decision of the authority is bad in law and requires
interference by this Court. In the interest of justice, as the scope
of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is of wider
ramification.
11. Per contra, learned Advocate for the State Ms.
Varitka K Kashyap has taken this Court through the impugned
order and submitted that the same has been passed after
meticulous examination of the records and on scrutiny of the
documents exhibited by the parties and, as such, the present writ
petition is not sustainable in facts or in law and no relief could
be granted to the petitioner while exercising the power to
judicial review. To support the aforesaid contention, reliance has
been placed on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the
case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences &
Anr. Vs. Bikartan Das & Ors., (2023) 16 SCC 462.
12. It is further contended that the petitioner was
appointed based upon wrong calculation of her merit marks and
if a mistake had been committed in calculation of merit marks, it
was her duty to object to it, after publication of provisional
merit list. It is thus obvious that she did not want to lose
advantage of this mistake or deliberate illegal act. Hence,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
8/17
connivance or implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out.
The Appellate Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that
despite the petitioner being aware of her actual marks and merit
points, she must have noticed after publication of provisional
merit list that it had been enhanced by wrong calculation, if she
did not make any objection, she was party of this mistake or
intentional illegal act. It is lastly contended that now in
compliance with the order passed by the State Appellate
Authority, necessary communication has been made by the
District Programme Officer, Saharsa to the concerned Panchayat
Secretary and accordingly, the petitioner has been terminated
from service vide order contained in Memo No. 15 dated
19.07.2024, which order is put to challenge by filing an
interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 1 of 2024.
13. This Court has bestowed anxious consideration to
the submissions advanced by learned Senior Advocate and
learned Advocate for the respective parties and also perused the
materials available on record.
14. Before coming to the facts of the present case, it
would be pertinent to take note of the principle enunciated by
the Apex Court in series of decisions, including one of the
decision upon which reliance has been placed by the State of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
9/17
Bihar i.e. Bikartan Das (supra) where the Court held that “the
first cardinal principle of law that governs the exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
more particularly when it comes to the issue of a writ of
certiorari is that in granting such a writ, the High Court does
not exercise the powers of the Appellate Tribunal. It does not
review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of
the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the
order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably
erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the
inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error
of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari,
being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere
asking.” It would be worth benefiting to encapsulate the
relevant paragraph of the aforenoted ruling, where the Apex
Court while crystallizing the scope and ambit of writ of
certiorari emphasized as follows:
“52. Relying on T.C. Basappa ,
the Constitution Bench of this Court in
Hari Vishnu Kamath, laid down the
following propositions as well established
: (Hari Vishnu Kamath case, SCC p. 899,
para 24)
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
10/17
“24. … 24.1. “Certiorari”
will be issued for correcting errors of
jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or
tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in
excess of it, or fails to exercise it.
24.2. “Certiorari” will also be
issued when the court or tribunal acts
illegally in the exercise of its undoubted
jurisdiction, as when it decides without
giving an opportunity to the parties to be
heard, or violates the principles of natural
justice.
24.3. The court issuing a writ
of “certiorari” acts in exercise of a
supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction.
One consequence of this is that the court
will not review findings of fact reached by
the inferior court or tribunal, even if they
be erroneous.”
53. This Court explained that a
court which has jurisdiction over a
subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide
wrong as well as right, and when the
legislature does not choose to confer a
right of appeal against that decision, it
would be defeating its purpose and policy
if a superior court were to rehear the case
on the evidence and substitute its own
finding in certiorari.”
15. Now coming to determine the validity of the
impugned order passed by the State Appellate Authority, it is
needless to observe that the tribunal is a creature of statute. Its
jurisdiction and power is confined to appeals made to it and
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
11/17
therefore confined to the four corners of the complaint. It has
neither the power of superintendence nor any inherent power to
do justice. Its power is limited to resolve the inter se dispute
between the parties. It is a court of limited jurisdiction in that
sense. It cannot undertake a roving enquiry into all aspects of
the matter connected or unconnected with the complaint. The
Tribunal/Authority on its own, could not enlarge its own
jurisdiction to become supervisory authority over the issue in
question and pass judgment thereon [Vide Chandra Bhanu
Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., (2024) 2 PLJR 68].
16. Admittedly, it is the petitioner who had
approached the District Appellate Authority for payment of her
salary and where the respondent authorities had raised a dispute
with regard to her initial appointment, based upon an incorrect
and wrong merit list, where the petitioner’s marks was shown as
73.07% placing her Rank at 26, where her actual marks were
59.18% to be placed at Rank 111. However, this fact has been
completely ignored that in terms with the procedures prescribed
for conducting counseling, it is only the petitioner, who turned
up for the same and at no point of time, any objection has been
made against the selection of the petitioner by any candidate. If
there was a mistake in the calculation of the merit marks,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
12/17
undisputedly the same was done by the employment unit.
Moreover, it has never been the case of the employment unit or
the respondents that there is any misrepresentation and fraud on
the part of the petitioner. The letter issued by the Education
Department under the signature of Additional Chief Secretary
under Memo No. 998 dated 22.09.2021 clearly direct that except
the case of producing forged certificates, with respect to other
issues pertaining to selection process, it is the employment
unit/authority, who are answerable and liable.
17. Before taking any action against the petitioner, it
was incumbent upon the respondent State authorities to take
action against the then employment unit, but the same has not
been done. It has rightly been submitted that no-one should be
punished for the mistake committed by others and allowed to
take advantage of their own mistake and later on, conveniently
pass on the blame to the others.
18. The State Appellate Authority while exercising the
power of appeal primarily statutorily obliged to see the illegality
of the order under appeal and in case, the order suffers from
illegality then while setting-aside the order, a direction should
be given to the concerned authority to take appropriate action, in
terms with the order passed by the appellate authority. However,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
13/17
in the case at hand, the State Appellate Authority accepted its
jurisdiction and subsume the power of the
employer/employment unit and passed the order of termination,
besides recovery of the salary right from the date of joining. It is
well settled law and the Courts across various decisions have
ruled that a termination order can only be effective from the date
it is passed or a future date, as it cannot legally erase the period,
during which services were actually rendered. An employee
cannot be deprived of benefits, as salary etc. earned during the
period of service of retrospectively backdating her termination.
Reference may be take to a decision rendered by learned
Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Lalita Kumari Vs. State of
Bihar & Ors., 1980 SCC OnLine Pat 175.
“Retrospective termination of
service or cancellation of the
appointment, as the case may be, is
totally unjustifiable and similar is the
position with regard to recovery of the
salary drawn for the period she worked
as a teacher. Conscious of this legal
position, the learned Additional Advocate
General representing the respondents
frankly conceded that this part of the
order could not be supported. The result
is that the cancellation of her
appointment from the date of her
appointment and orders for recovery of
the salary drawn by her during the period
she actually worked as a teacher is held
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
14/17
to be unsustainable in law and is bound
to be quashed.”
19. Reliance of the State Appellate Authority on a
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.
Vishwanatha Pillai Vs State of Kerela & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC
105, while directing the District Education Officer to recover
the salary of the petitioner for the period she rendered her duty
in the opinion of this Court would be applicable in a case where
the appointment to said post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or
crime or illegality and would not be applicable in all the cases,
as a rule of thumb.
20. At the cost of repetition, it would be pertinent to
observe that it has never been the case of the employment unit
that the petitioner has produced any certificates or documents,
which has been found to be forged and fabricated, rather it is the
employment unit itself, who has committed mistake while
calculating the marks of the petitioner along with other
candidates. The respondents have also not come out with a case
that the petitioner has anyhow caused manipulation and
miscalculation of the marks in connivance with the member of
the employment unit, hence the finding of the State Appellate
Authority that none disclosure of the petitioner regarding
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
15/17
miscalculation of marks is a deliberate illegal act and thus,
connivance of the petitioner is quite obvious.
21. This is also not the case of the respondent that if
the marks of the petitioner is recalculated and rightly shown as
59.18% then she would have been ousted from the zone of
consideration; once the record clearly suggest that the petitioner
was the only candidate, who had appeared in the counseling. It
would be worth stating that the record placed before this Court
clearly demonstrates that in counseling, it is only the petitioner,
who had turned up and despite the proper information and
notice, none of the candidate chose to appear.
22. Now coming to the issue with regard to
jurisdiction of the State Appellate Authority to decide a lis
finally in absence of judicial member, the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in (2025) 4 PLJR 1 (CWJC No. 12632 of 2025,
Shobha Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) has held that
the order passed by the learned State Appellate Authority in the
absence of judicial Chairperson is without jurisdiction and
accordingly, set-aside the impugned order passed by the State
Appellate Authority. It would be also appropriate to take note of
the relevant paragraph, which reads as follows:
“4. Otherwise also order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
16/17
21.07.2025 passed by the Chairperson
State Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna
(Respondent no. 6), in Case No. Appeal
70 of 2024 is not sustainable, as the same
has been passed by the Officer of Indian
Administrative Service. The Tribunal
quorum provided under Rule 4(3) of the
Bihar State School Teachers and
Employees Disputes Redressal Rules,
2015 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Rules, 2015’) has not been fulfilled. A
reference in this regard can be taken to
the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Utility
Welfare Association reported in (2018) 6
SCC 21, the impugned order dated
19.06.2024 passed by the District
Appellate Authority in Appeal No.94 of
2023 and order dated 21.07.2025 passed
by the Chairperson State Appellate
Authority in Appeal no.70 of 2024 can
only be held to be without jurisdiction
and as such, the same are hereby set-
aside and quashed.”
23. On account of all the reasons disclosed and the
position of the law explained, this Court finds that the impugned
order passed by the State Appellate Authority suffers from the
illegality, besides it acceded its jurisdiction while passing the
order of retrospective termination and recovery of salary.
Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to set-aside the order
dated 24.05.2024 passed in Case No. Appeal/T-284/2023 as also
the consequential order contained in Memo No. 15 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.9257 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
17/17
19.07.2024 issued by the Panchayat Secretary-cum-Member
Secretary, Employment Unit and remitted the matter to the State
Appellate Authority afresh.
24. On account of the impugned orders having been
set-aside by this Court, the consequences shall follow and the
petitioner is directed to be reinstated and allowed to discharge
her duty, till any order is passed by the State Appellate
Authority, adverse to her right and entitlement of appointment.
25. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. All
the pending application(s), including I.A. No. 01/2024 stands
allowed.
26. There shall be no order as to cost.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…