Patna High Court
Indu KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court affirmed the Single Judge’s judgment, finding no error, perversity, or material irregularity, and dismissed the intra‑court appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Indu Kumari, challenged the cancellation of her contractual appointment as Panchayat Teacher, arguing that the District Teachers Appellate Authority acted without notice and improperly rejected her experience as an Anganbari worker. The Single Judge examined the appellant's application form, concluded that such experience was not admissible for weightage under the applicable norms, and upheld the authority's order, dismissing the writ petition. On intra‑court appeal, the High Court considered whether the Single Judge's findings were perverse, illegal, or suffered material irregularity, and whether the principles of natural justice were violated. The Court held that the Single Judge had independently verified the facts, provided the appellant an opportunity to be heard, and that the findings were supported by the record. Consequently, the appellate court found no ground for interference and affirmed the lower court’s decision, dismissing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the Single Judge's judgment is liable to be set aside on grounds of illegality, perversity, or material irregularity.
- Whether the cancellation of the appellant's appointment without prior notice violated the principles of natural justice.
- Whether experience as an Anganbari worker can be considered for weightage in the appointment of a Panchayat Teacher.
Subjects
- natural justice
- appointment
- contractual teacher
- weightage of experience
- intra‑court appeal
- writ petition
- procedural fairness
- district appellate authority
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1287 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10383 of 2011
======================================================
Indu Kumari Resident of Village- Kurpat, P.S.- Parghari, P.S.- Sabour,
District- Bhagalpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, H.R.D. Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director Primary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The District Superintendent of Education, , Bhagalpur.
4. The Block Education Officer, Sabour, Bhagalpur.
5. The District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Bhagalpur through
its President.
6. The Block Development Officer, Sabour, Bhagalpur.
7. The Panchayat Secretary, Baijalpur Gram Panchayat, Block-Sabour, District-
Bhagalpur.
8. Urmila Devi, wife of Sri Murlidhar Pandit, Village-Kurpat, P.S.-Sabour,
District-Bhagalpur.
9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Baijalpur, Sabour, District-Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
5 11-02-2026 Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2023
Learned counsel for the appellant presses I.A. No. 01
of 2023 for condoning the delay of 314 days in preferring this
appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1287 of 2023(5) dt.11-02-2026
2/7
in preferring this appeal is condoned.
3. I.A. No. 01 of 2023 stands allowed.
Re: LPA No.1287 of 2023
4. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
by the appellant against the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge in CWJC No.10383 of 2011, whereby the
writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
5. In the writ petition, following reliefs have been
sought for by the writ petitioner:-
(i) For quashing the order contained in
Memo No. 330 dated 30.4.2011 (Annexure-
8) passed by Member of Zila Shikshak
Niyojan Appealiye Pradhikar, Bhagalpur
(Tribunal) in Appeal Case No. 101/2009
whereby and whereunder Niyojan (Contract)
of Petitioner as Panchayat Teacher in
Primary School, Naya Tola, Kurpat has been
cancelled and further directed to appoint the
respondent no.3 in her place.
(ii) For issuance of writ of Mandamus
directing the respondent to reinstate the
petitioner to the post on which she was
working after appointment."
6. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are
that pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2008 for
appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher on contractual
basis, the appellant applied, and upon counselling, was placed
first in the merit list. An appointment letter dated 14.08.2020
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1287 of 2023(5) dt.11-02-2026
3/7
was issued in her favour and she joined the post. Subsequently,
by order dated 30.04.2011 passed in Appeal No. 101of 2009 by
the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Bhagalpur, her
appointment was cancelled on the allegation that she had
secured appointment on the basis of an inadmissible experience
certificate.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the material
available on record and that the order of District Appellate
Authority was passed in violation of the principles of natural
justice, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
appellant. It is further submitted that the weightage of 20 marks
was granted on the basis of her experience as an Instructor and
not as an Anganbari Worker, and that the certificate relied upon
was duly verified and genuine.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the learned Single Judge, after meticulous
examination of the record, rightly affirmed the order of the
District Teachers Appellate Authority. It is submitted that the
experience claimed by the appellant pertained to her
engagement as an Anganbari Worker, which was not admissible
for grant of weightage under the applicable norms for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1287 of 2023(5) dt.11-02-2026
4/7
appointment as Panchayat Teacher. It is further submitted that
though the District Appellate Authority had not granted hearing
to the appellant, the learned Single Judge, considering the
prolonged pendency of the matter since 2011, examined the
entire record and afforded adequate opportunity to the appellant
before arriving at a just conclusion.
9. The learned Single Judge, upon due consideration
of the pleadings and materials available on record, has observed
as under:
“5. This writ petition is pending since
2011. The petitioner is no more in employment.
While it may be correct that the District Appellate
Authority has passed an order without serving
notice on the petitioner and the order therefore
cannot be sustained but in order to meet the ends of
justice, this Court has examined the application
form of the petitioner and if satisfied that the
experience was on the basis of her working as an
Anganwari worker at Bhagalpur which she
mentions in column 15 of the application form
which she has herself placed before this Court as
Annexure 3. For the post of Panchayat Teacher such
experience could not have been considered for
granting weightage.
6. Keeping in view thereto, the ultimate
conclusion drawn by the District Appellate
Authority is found to be correct by this court and no
purpose would be served to send the matter again
back to the District Appellate Authority for
rehearing. In the present case post-facto hearing is
found to be sufficient. Keeping in view thereto, the
writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed. Interim order if any stands
dismissed.”
10. The limited issue for consideration before this
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1287 of 2023(5) dt.11-02-2026
5/7
Court is whether the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge suffers from any illegality, perversity, or material
irregularity warranting interference in exercise of intra- court
appellate jurisdiction.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials available on record. It is well settled that
the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal against the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is limited. Unless
the findings recorded are shown to be perverse, contrary to the
evidence on record, or suffering from any patent illegality,
interference is not justified.
12. From a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is
evident that the learned Single Judge independently examined
the application form and documents submitted by the appellant
and recorded a categorical finding that the experience claimed
by the appellant pertained to her engagement as an Anganbari
Worker, as disclosed in the relevant column of the application
form.
13. It is not in dispute that such experience was not
admissible for grant of weightage for appointment to the post of
Panchayat Teacher under the governing norms. The finding
recorded by the learned Single Judge is based upon the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1287 of 2023(5) dt.11-02-2026
6/7
appellant’s own documents and cannot be said to be based on no
evidence or extraneous considerations.
14. So far as the plea of violation of principles of
natural justice is concerned, the learned Single Judge has duly
taken note of the fact that the District Teachers Appellate
Authority had passed the impugned order without affording
notice to the appellant. However, instead of remanding the
matter after long lapse of time, the learned Single Judge
examined the entire record and afforded opportunity to the
appellant to substantiate her claim. Upon such consideration, the
Writ Court found that the ultimate conclusion of the Appellate
Authority was correct and that remand would be an empty
formality.
15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
approach adopted by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to
be arbitrary, perverse or legally unsustainable.
16. We do not find that the impugned judgment
suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record, nor has
any perversity or material irregularity been demonstrated so as
to warrant interference in the present appeal.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that no case for interference is made out.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1287 of 2023(5) dt.11-02-2026
7/7
The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in
CWJC No. 10383 of 2011 is hereby affirmed.
18. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
dismissed.
19. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/Rajesh/-
U
Checking your session…