Patna High Court
Kumari Sudha YadavversusThe State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
Appointments made from an expired merit list are illegal; the State Appellate Authority correctly condoned the delay, but its retrospective termination and salary‑recovery order is unsustainable, so the termination is set aside and only salary for actual service is payable.
Summary
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the 2006 and 2008 recruitment rules, placed on merit lists but not initially appointed; after vacancies arose they obtained appointments through the District Appellate Authority but were denied salaries. They filed writ petitions and the Single Judge ordered payment of salaries and verification of claims, while the State Appellate Authority later set aside those appointments and ordered recovery of salaries. On appeal, the Court examined six key issues, including the jurisdiction of the District Appellate Authority to appoint from an expired merit list, the condonability of delay in filing appeals, and the validity of the State Appellate Authority’s order without a Judicial Chairman. The Court held that appointments based on an expired merit list are illegal, the merit list cannot be revived, and the State Appellate Authority correctly condoned delay, but its retrospective termination and salary‑recovery order were not sustainable. Accordingly, the Court set aside the termination order, allowed salary for periods actually served, and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Appellate Authority had power to appoint candidates from the 2006‑2008 merit list after the recruitment process had concluded and the list had expired
- Whether the delay in filing appeals before the State Appellate Authority can be condoned under the Rules and limitation law
- Whether the District Education Officer, District Programme Officer and Block Education Officer had locus standi to file appeals before the State Appellate Authority despite not being parties before the District Appellate Authority
- Whether the life of the merit list prepared under the 2006‑2008 rules can be revived for vacancies arising after 2012
- Whether candidates from the 2006‑2008 process could be appointed under the 2012 rules without satisfying the Teacher Eligibility Test requirement
- Whether the State Appellate Authority’s order of retrospective termination and salary recovery is legally sustainable
Legislation cited
- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — s. 4, 5(2), 5(6)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 1908
- Constitution of India — s. 14, 16, 162, 243G, 309
- Indian Penal Code — s. 193, 219, 228
Subjects
- teacher recruitment
- merit list
- public service appointment
- articles 14 and 16
- delay condonation
- jurisdiction
- coram non-judice
- equity vs law
- Bihar education rules
- letters patent appeal
- retrospective termination
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.315 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.436 of 2024
======================================================
1. Arjun Kumar Son of Late Hiralal Singh, Resident of village - Sipah, Post
Office and Police Station -Basantpur, District - Siwan. At present posted and
working as Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded Middle School Madarpur
(Rajput Tola), Anchal - Lakri Nabiganj, District Siwan.
2. Satish Kumar Dubey Son of Janardan Dubey, Resident of village
-Narayanpur, Post Office -Uchkagaon, Police Station - Kuchaikot, District -
Gopalganj. At present posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt.
Upgraded Middle School Jalalpur Hindi, Anchal Lakri Nabiganj, District -
Siwan.
3. Munni Khatoon Daughter of Ali Raja Hussain, Resident of village Mura,
Police Station Basantpur, District-Siwan. At present posted and working as a
Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded Middle School Wazidpur Urdu, Anchal
- Lakri Nabiganj, District - Siwan.
4. Ishrat Parveen @ Ishrat Parbeen Daughter of Ainul Haque Ansari, Resident
of Village and Post Office-Mustafabad, Police Station- Goreyakothi, District
-Siwan. At present posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt.
Middle School Sikatiya, Anchal Lakri Nabiganj, District -Siwan.
5. Kumari Seema Gupta Daughter of Vinod Gupta, Resident of village and Post
Office and Police Station Basantpur, District Swian. At present posted and
working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded Middle School Wazdipur
Urdu, Anchal- Lakri Nabiganj, District- Siwan.
6. Wazda Tabbasum Daughter of Samiullah Ansari, Resident of village
-Sahnawazpur, Police Station - Goreyakothi, District - Siwan. At present
posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded Middle
School Khawaspur Hindi, Anchal - Lakri Nabiganj, District - Siwan.
7. Md. Mojibur Rahman Son of Aatur Rah, Resident of village and Post Office
Mustafabad, Police Station- Goreyakothi, District-Siwan. At present posted
and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded Middle School
Khawaspur Hindi, Anchal Lakri Nabiganj, District -Siwan.
8. Shiv Kumar Ram Son of Kalam Ram, Resident of village Bindwal, Post
Office- Chainpur, Police Station Goreyakothi, District Siwan. At present
posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded Middle
School Indauli, Anchal Lakri Nabiganj. District - Siwan.
9. Gulab Chand Ram Son of Rampyare Ram, Resident of village and Post
Office - Khajuri, Police Station Kuchaikot, District Gopalganj. At present
posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded Middle
School Ujjaina, Anchal - Lakri Nabiganj, District- Siwan.
10. Dinesh Singh Son of Ramashankar Singh, Resident of village and Post
Office Ratanpura, Police Station- Gopalpur, District- Gopalganj. At present
posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded Middle
School Basauli, Anchal - Lakri Nabiganj, District - Siwan.
11. Nitu Kumari Daughter of Shailanath Singh, Resident of village and Post
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
2/103
Office- Kawalpur, Police Station Goreyakothi, District - Saran at Chapra. At
present posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded
Middle School Barwan Dumri, Anchal Lakri Nabiganj, District - Siwan.
12. Md. Ziyaul Rahman @ Md. Ziyau Rehman Son of Ainul Haque Ansari,
Resident of village Mustafabad, Post Office Chainpur, Police Station
Goreyakothi, District Siwan. At present posted and working as a Prakhand
Teacher in Govt. Kanya Middle School Nandpur, Anchal - Lakri Nabiganj,
District - Siwan.
13. Kumari Arti Kushwaha Wife of Chandan Kumar, Resident of village and
Post Office Uchkagaon, Police Station- Kuchaikot, District- Gopalganj. At
present posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Middle School
Bishunpura, Anchal Lakri Nabiganj, District - Siwan.
14. Ajay Kumar Gupta Son of Yogendra Prasad Gupta, Resident of village and
Post Office- Sasamusa, Police Station- Kuchaikot, District- Gopalganj. At
present posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded
Middle School Ujjaina, Anchal Lakri Nabiganj, District Siwan.
15. Savitri Kumari Daughter of Sahdeo Ram, Resident of village and Post
Office - Chainpur, Police Station- Goreyakothi, District Siwan. At present
posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded Middle
School Bhadda Urdu, Anchal Lakri Nabiganj, District - Siwan.
16. Anupma Kumari Daughter of Ranjit Singh, Resident of village and Post
Office - Uchkagaon, Police Station- Kuchaikot, District- Gopalganj. At
present posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Middle School
Kishunpura, Anchal - Lakri Nabiganj, District - Siwan.
17. Md. Rizwan Son of Sagir Alam, Resident of village and Post Office Lakri
Nabiganj, Police Station- Nabiganj, District- Siwan. At present posted and
working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded Middle Lakri Maktab,
Anchal - Lakri Nabiganj, District - Siwan.
18. Shahid Ekbal Son of Sahabuddin Ahmad, Resident of village and Post
Office and Police Station-Basantpur, District - Siwan. At present posted and
working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded Middle School Nandpur.
Anchal - Lakri Nabiganj, District-Siwan.
19. Ajay Kumar Son of Hari Narayan Pandey, Resident of village and Post
Office-Gopalpur, Police Station- Nabiganj, District- Siwan. At present
posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Middle School
Gopalpur, Anchal - Lakri Nabiganj, District - Siwan.
20. Subi Kumari Daughter of Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, Resident of village
Basauli, Post Office Nabiganj. Police Station Nabiganj District Siwan. At
present posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upgraded
Middle School Lachhua, Anchal- Lakri Nabiganj, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary cum the Principal Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
3/103
4. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.
6. The Block Development Officer Lakri Nabiganj, District- Siwan.
7. The Block Education Officer, Lakri Nabiganj, District- Siwan.
8. The Block Panchayat Raj Officer cum the Block Development Officer, Lakri
Nabiganj, District- Siwan.
9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Lakri Nabiganj, Block- Lakri
Nabiganj, District- Siwan.
10. The Secretary, Block Employment Unit, Block- Lakri Nabiganj, District-
Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 287 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18081 of 2022
======================================================
Puja Kumari Wife of Rupesh Singh, Resident of Village - Gangava, P.S. -
Sindhwaliya, District- Gopalganj, Pin Code - 841423.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Estab.), Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 288 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4554 of 2023
======================================================
1. Ranjana Kumari Wife of Shri Ripu KumarDixit, Resident of Koreya Dixit,
P.O. - Jagtaul, Koreya, District Gopalganj, Pin - 841426.
2. Nagma Shaheen Daughter of Shri Shamshad Ali Resident of Village
Tarwara, P.O. - Tarwara, District- Siwan, Pin - 841506.
3. Parween Zafri Wife of Shri Javed Ahmad, Resident of House NO. 53 KH,
Village - Pipra, P.O. Pipra, District- Gopalganj, Pin - 841427.
4. Babuddin Ali Son of Shri Mokhtar Ali, Resident of Village - Saraiya, Post
Saraiya, District - Siwan, Pin - 841506.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
4/103
5. Ghulam Husain Son of Shri Sageer Ahmad Resident of Barasara, Barharia,
P.O. Barharia, District- Siwan, Pin - 841232.
6. Jitendra Kumar Manjhi Son of Shri Sivbalak Manjhi Resident of 70,
Tilsandi, Braharia, P.O. Barharia, District- Siwan, Pin - 841232.
7. Pramod Paswan Son of Shri Baijnath Paswan Resident of Ukhai Purab Patti,
P.O. - Ukhai, District- Siwan, Pin - 841227.
8. Dharmendra Kumar Bhakta Son of Shri Jagdish Bhakta Resident of Village -
Dihiya, Pipra Naryan, Post - Dindayalpur, District- Siwan, Pin - 841506.
9. Sarita Singh Wife of Shri Vinay Kumar Prasad Resident of
Kothuasarangpur, P.O. - Kothuasarangpur, District- Siwan, Pin - 841238.
10. Gudiya Kumari Wife of Shri Kumar Manikant Resident of Village - New
Bhupatipur, South Bhupatipur, Post - Sheikhpura, District- Patna, Pin -
800020.
11. Sangita Kumari Wife of Sri Rajesh Singh Resident of Uttar Tola Itwa, P.S. -
Itwa, District- Siwan, Pin - 841241.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
3. District Education Officer, Siwan.
4. District Programme Officer, Establishment, Siwan.
5. Block Development Officer - cum- Secretary, Block Teachers Employment
Unit, Pachrukhi, District- Siwan.
6. Block Education Officer, Pachrukhi, District- Siwan.
7. Block Teachers Employment Unit, Pachrukhi, District- Siwan through its
Secretary.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 293 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12726 of 2024
======================================================
1. Priyanka Singh D/o Vishwanath Singh Resident of Village- Ukhai Purab
Tola, P.S.-O.P. Sarai, District- Siwan.
2. Dipika Singh D/o Dinesh Singh R/o Village- Ward No. 13 Behind Triveni
Place, Gopalganj, P.S.- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
5/103
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.
6. The Block Education Officer, Pachrukhi Block, District-Siwan.
7. The Block Development Officer, Pachrukhi Block, District-Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 294 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11855 of 2024
======================================================
1. Baby Kumari D/o Rambalak Singh Resident of Village- Bhadal, P.O.-
Bhimpur, P.S. Barharia, District- Siwan.
2. Kumari Mira, D/o Sri Ramdeo Prasad, Wife of Surendra Prasad Resident of
Village- Kodai, P.O.- Chap, P.S.- Pachrukhi, District- Siwan.
3. Nitu Kumari, D/o Yogendra Prasad, W/o Santosh Kumar Resident of
Village- Gudhni, P.O. and P.S. Gudhni, District- Siwan.
4. Khurshid Alam, Son of Abdul Karim Resident of Village- Kajidhamsar,
P.O.- Panditpur, P.S. Janta Bazar, District- Siwan.
5. Ajimullah Ansari, Son of Abdul Rahman Resident of Village- Beldari Tola,
P.O.- Maharajganj, P.S.- Draunda, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.
6. The Block Education Officer, Panchrukhi Block, District- Siwan.
7. The Block Development Officer, Panchrukhi Block, District- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
6/103
Letters Patent Appeal No. 297 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7956 of 2022
======================================================
Bimala Prasad Wife of Anil Kumar Manjhi, Resident of Village-Jagatpur, P.s.-
Barhariya, District-Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj, Bihar.
6. The Mukhiya cum Chairman, Panchayat Teacher Niyojan Unit, Gram
Panchayat Raj, Paithan Patti, Manjha, Gopalganj.
7. The Panchayat Secretary cum Secretary, Panchayat Teachers Niyojan Unit,
Gram Panchayat Raj, Paithan Patti, Manjha, Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 301 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16170 of 2022
======================================================
Kamini Kumari @ Kamni Kumari Wife of Avinash Kumar Singh, Resident of
Janglia, Ward No. 18, Thawe Road, P.S. and District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The Mukhiya-cum-Chairman, Panchayat Employment Committee, Gram
Panchayat Raj Chourav, District- Gopalganj.
6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Chourav, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
7/103
Letters Patent Appeal No. 302 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4140 of 2024
======================================================
Ramta Prasad Son of Brahmdeo Prasad @ Brahamdew Prasad, Resident of
Village - Kumhar @ Kushahar,P.S. -Mahamadpur, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secreary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
6. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 303 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7455 of 2022
======================================================
Sita Devi Wife of Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Pinarthu
Khurd, Sonbarsa, P.S - Daraundha, District - Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
5. The District Programme Officer, Siwan.
6. The Block Development Officer, Pachrukhi, Siwan.
7. The Block Education Officer, Pachrukhi, Siwan.
8. The Pramukh-cum-Chairman, Block Niyojan Unit, Pachrukhi, Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 308 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16673 of 2022
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
8/103
======================================================
Rinki Kumari Wife of Alok Kumar Singh, Resident of Janglia, Ward No. 18,
Thawe Road, P.S. and District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The Mukhiya-cum-Chairman, Panchayat Employment Committee, Gram
Panchayat Raj Chourav, District- Gopalganj.
6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Chourav, District -
Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 310 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4160 of 2024
======================================================
Ragini Kumari Wife of Ajay Kumar Singh, Resident of Village - Pipra, P.S. -
Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Estb.), Gopalganj.
6. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 314 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18409 of 2023
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Singh Son of Shri Rambahadur Singh Resident of village-
Seriyan, Post Office - Baiju Barhoga, Seria, Police Station - Baikunthpur,
District Gopalganj, At present posted and working as Prakhand Teacher in
Govt. Middle School Mujaha, Block - Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
9/103
2. The Additional Chief Secretary -cum-the Principal Secretary Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
6. The Block Development Officer-cum- the Secretary, Block Teachers
Employment Unit Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj.
7. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj.
8. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer-cum- the Executive Officer, Panchayat
Samiti Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 316 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8696 of 2024
======================================================
1. Jairam Rajak son of Shri Magister Rajak, resident of village - Tiyay, Ward
No. 1, TA, Police Station - Andar, District - Siwan. Prakhand Teacher in
Govt. Upgraded Middle School Suryapura, Anchal-Ziradei, District -Siwan.
2. Dinesh Kumar Ram Son of Shri Rambachan Ram resident of village Bangra
Ujjain, Miyan Ke Bhatkan, Police Station Andar, District -Siwan. Prakhand
Teacher in Govt. Upgraded School Hirmakariyar, Anchal - Ziradei, District-
Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary -cum- the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Siwan
5. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) Siwan.
7. The Secretary-cum- the Block Development Officer, Block Teacher
Employment Unit, Ziradei, District - Siwan.
8. The Block Development Officer, Ziradei, Siwan.
9. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Ziradei, Siwan.
10. The Block Education Officer, Ziradei, Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 327 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9044 of 2024
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
10/103
======================================================
Priyanka Kumari Daughter of Krishna Kant Singh, W/o Sri Amit Kumar
Singh Resident of Village- Sipah, P.O and P.S.- Basantpur, District- Siwan,
P.O. and P.S.-Basantpur, District-Siwan, Presently residing at Village and
P.O.-Ratan Padauli, P.S.-BHagwanpur Hat, District-Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.
4. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Bahgwanpur Hat, P.O. and P.S.-
Bhagwanpur Hat, District-Siwan.
5. The Block Education Officer, Bahgwanpur Hat, P.O. and P.S.-Bhagwanpur
Hat, District-Siwan.
6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sarai Padauli, Block-
Bhagwanpur, District-Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 330 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10001 of 2024
======================================================
1. Bharosha Kumari Daughter of Krishna Prasad Gupta, Wife of Sri Birendra
Kumar Prasad Resident of Village- Karahi Khurd, P.O and P.S.- Basantpur,
District- Siwan
2. Manish Kumar Pal Son of Mohar Lal Prasad Resident of Village and P.O.-
Barkagaon, P.S.- Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.
3. Pawan Kumar Singh Son of Prabhunath Singh Resident of Village- Lauwan
Khurd, P.O.- Mirzapur, P.S.- Janta Bazar, District- Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.
4. The Block Education Officer, Bhagwanpur Hat, P.O. and P.S. - Bhagwanpur
Hat, District- Siwan.
5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Khedhwa, Block-
Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
11/103
Letters Patent Appeal No. 342 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1280 of 2024
======================================================
Kumari Annu Tiwari @ Kumari Anu Tiwari Daughter of Sri Lalan Tiwari,
Resident of Village- Dhanauti, P.O. and P.S.- Mashrak, District- Saran
Presently working as Block Teacher, Upgraded Middle School, Hamidpur,
Block- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Development Officer-cum-Secretary, Block Teacher Employment
Unit, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S.- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
5. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S.- Baikunthpur,
District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 344 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12528 of 2024
======================================================
1. Amit Kumar Sinha Son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Resident of Village-
and P.O.- Charuipar, P.S.- Noorsaria, District- Nalanda.
2. Sachhidanand Kumar Son of Late Bechu Ram Resident of Village-Bedhna,
P.O. Narsanda, P.S.-Harnaut, District-Nalanda.
3. Rajesh Kumar Son of Kishori Prasad Resident of Village-Gopibigha, P.O.-
Tulsigarh, P.S.-Chandi, District-Nalanda.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretatiat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
3. The District Programme Officer, (Establishment), Nalanda at Biharsharif.
4. The Block Education Officer, Chandi, P.O. and P.S.-Chandi, District-
Nalanda at Biharsharif.
5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rukhai, Block-Chandi,
District-Nalanda at Biharsharif.
6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Rukhai, Block-Chandi, District-Nalanda
at Biharsharif.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
12/103
Letters Patent Appeal No. 346 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12965 of 2024
======================================================
Ranju Kumari Daughter of Ramdeo Prasad, Wife of Pramod Kumar, Resident
of Village, P.O. and P.S. - Shahjahanpur, District- Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda at Biharsharif.
4. The Block Education Officer, Chandi, P.O. and P.S. - Chandi, District-
Nalanda at Biharsharif.
5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rukhai, Block - Chandi,
District- Nalanda at Biharsharif.
6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rukhai, Block- Chandi, District-
Nalanda at Biharsharif.
7. Pratima Kumari Daughter of Shyam Nandan Prasad, Wife of Dhananjay
Kumar Chakravarti, Resident of Village - Kalyanpur Bali, P.O. - Jagatpur,
P.S. - Chandi, District- Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 347 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12965 of 2024
======================================================
1. Pratima Kumari Daughter of Shyam Nandan Prasad, Wife of Dhananjay
Kumar Chakravarti, Resident of Village - Kalyanpur Bali, P.O. - Jagatpur,
P.S. - Chandi, District- Nalanda.
2. Babita Kumari Daughter of Ramashish Paswan, Wife of Dharmendar
Paswan, Resident of Village - Kaithir, P.O. - Mahkar, P.S. - Chandi, District-
Nalanda.
3. Ranju Kumari Daughter of Karu Mahto, Wife of Ram Pravesh Prasad,
Resident of Village - Badi Kevai, P.O. - Daniawan, P.S. - Shahjahanpur,
District- Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda at Biharsharif.
4. The Block Education Officer, Chandi, P.O. and P.S. - Chandi, District-
Nalanda at Biharsharif.
5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rukhai, Block - Chandi,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
13/103
District- Nalanda at Biharsharif.
6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rukhai, Block- Chandi, District-
Nalanda at Biharsharif.
7. Ranju Kumari Daughter of Ramdeo Prasad, Wife of Pramod Kumar,
Resident of Village, P.O. and P.S. - Shahjahanpur, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 350 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5932 of 2024
======================================================
1. Amarjeet Kumar Son of Hari Narayan Shah Resident of Village- Chitauli
Bazar, Chittauli Kala, Police Station- Goreyakothi, District - Siwan.
2. Bikash Kumar @ Vikas Kumar Son of Arjun Singh Resident of Village -
Hariharpur Kala, Police Station - Goreyakothi, District - Siwan.
3. Bina Kumari Daughter of Bhuneshwar Singh Resident of Village - Barhoga
Kothi, Barhoga Parsotim, Police Station - Goreyakothi, District - Siwan.
4. Sanjiv Kumar Son of Jawahar Bharti Resident of Ward No. 20, Krishna
Nagar, Post Officer and District Gopalganj at Present residing at
Goreyakothi West Mathia, Police Station-Goreyakothi, District-Siwan.
5. Madhuri Kumari Daughter of Thakur Singh Resident of Village - Hariharpur
(Kala), Police Station Jamo Bazar, District - Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
5. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.
7. The Block Development Officer -cum- Member Secretary, Block
Employment Unit, Goreyakothi, District -Siwan.
8. The Block Development Officer, Goreyakothi, Siwan.
9. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Goreyakothi, Siwan.
10. The Block Education Officer, Goreyakothi, Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 351 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17679 of 2023
======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
14/103
Shyamli @ Shyamali Daughter of Jay Nath Singh, Resident of Lodipur, China
Kothi, Near Bihar Fire Service, Patna, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Patna, presently
working as Block Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Balahan, Block-
Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Development Officer cum Secretary, Block Teacher Employment
Unit, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S. - Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj.
5. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S. - Baikunthpur,
District-Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 352 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4178 of 2024
======================================================
1. Sumitra Kumari Daughter of Shri Ram Sah, Wife of Mankeshwar Sah,
Resident of Village Uchkagaon, Post Office -Uchkagaon, District Gopalganj.
At present posted and working as Prakhand Teacher in Govt. Upagraded
Middle School Suryapura Ahir Toli, Anchal Basantpur, District - Siwan.
2. Mani Prakash Dubey Son of Om Prakash Dubey Resident of Village-9,
Narayan Pur, Narayaneshwar Mandir, Police Station Kuchaikote, District-
Gopalganj. At present posted and working as a Prakhand Teacher in Govt.
Higher Secondary 10 plus 2 School, Karcholiya, Anchal- Basantpur,
District- Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar. Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary -cum- the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
5. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) Siwan.
7. The Secretary-cum- the Block Development Officer, Block Teacher
Employment Unit, Basantpur, District - Siwan.
8. The Block Development Officer, Basantpur, Siwan.
9. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Basantpur, Siwan.
10. The Block Education Officer, Basantpur, Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
15/103
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 353 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1001 of 2024
======================================================
Murshid Alam Son of Rahmuddin Resident of Village and Post Office -
Khawaspur, Ward No. 8, Khawaspur Tola Malikana, Near- Road, Police
Station - Basantpur, District - Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary-Cum-the Principal Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.
6. The Block Development Officer, Lakarinaviganj, District - Siwan.
7. The Block Education Officer, Lakarinaviganj, District-Siwan.
8. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer-cum-the Block Development Officer,
Lakarinaviganj, District - Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 354 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11137 of 2024
======================================================
1. Rajnish Kr. Bhargav S/o Kameshwar Singh, R/o Vill- Maghari, P.O.- Saghar
Sultanpur, P.S.- Bhagwnapur Hat, District- Siwan.
2. Manoj Kumar Yadav @ Manoj Yadav, S/O- Udaynarayan Yadav, R/o- Vill
and P.O.- Khajuri, P.S.- Sasamusa Distt- Gopalganj.
3. Firoj Ahmad, S/o Dil Mohammad, R/o- Vill- Alampur, P.O.- Mohammadpur,
P.S.- Barharia, Distt- Siwan.
4. Alka Kumari, W/o Dev Kumar Singh, R/o- Vill- Raghunathpur Tola
Koninaya, P.O.- Rampur, P.S. Keshariya, Distt- East Champaran.
5. Seeta Kumari @ Seeta Singh, D/o- Sujit Kumar, R/o Vill and P.O.-
Sultanpur (Urdu), P.S.- Bhagwanpur Hat Distt- Siwan.
6. Jitendra Kumar Rai, S/o- Bachcha Ray, R/o- Vill and P.O.- Mithi P.S.-
Goriyakothi, Distt- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
16/103
3. The Director, Primary Education Government of Bihar Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.
6. The Block Education Officer, Basantpur, Distt- Siwan.
7. The Secretary, Block Employment Unit- Basantpur Block- Basantpur, Distt-
Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 357 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12608 of 2024
======================================================
Gyanti Kumari Daughter of Sri Sivnath Ram Resident of Village and P.O. -
Dubauli, P.S. - Panapur, District- Saran, posted as Panchayat Teacher in New
Primary School, Mangalpur (Dhobi Tola), Block - Baikunthpur, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S. - Baikunthpur,
District- Gopalganj.
5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Ajbi Nagar, Block -
Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 358 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10844 of 2024
======================================================
1. Kumari Sudha Yadav D/o - Basudeo Yadav, R/o - Vill - Gararia, P.O. and
P.S. - Guthani, Distt. - Siwan.
2. Nirmala Tiwari D/o Chandra Shekhar Dubey, R/o Vill and P.O. and P.s. -
Guthani, Distt- Siwan.
3. Khusbu Chaturvedi D/o - Ganga Sagar Chaturvedi, R/o - Vill - Sematanr,
P.O. and P.S. - Guthani, Distt- Siwan.
4. Ragini Kumari D/o Kameshwar Singh R/o Vill - Belore, P.S. - Guthani,
Distt. - Siwan.
5. Pradeep Kumar S/o Vyas Kushwaha R/o Vill - Sohrai, P.O. and P.S. -
Guthani, Distt- Siwan.
6. Rita Devi D/o Rudal Yadav R/o Vill - Sematanr, P.O. and P.S. - Guthani,
Distt - Siwan.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
17/103
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.
6. The Block Education Officer, Guthani, Distt - Siwan.
7. The Secretary, Block Teacher Niyojan Unit, Block - Guthani, Distt. - Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 359 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18362 of 2023
======================================================
Jamila Khatoon @ Jamila Khatun Wife of Md. Shah Alam Resident of
Village-and P.O.- Barahima, P.S.- Sidhwaliya, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Barauli, P.O. and P.S.-Barauli, District-
Gopalganj.
5. The Block Education Officer, Barauli, P.O. and P.S.-Barauli, District-
Gopalganj.
6. The Panchayat Secretary-Cum-Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment
Unit, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rampur, P.O.-Rampur, Block and P.S.-Barauli,
District-Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 362 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10139 of 2023
======================================================
Madhuri Kumari Daughter of Gauri Shankar Thakur, Resident of Village and
P.O.- Khetith, P.S. - Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
18/103
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Development Officer-cum-Secretary, Block Teacher Employment
Unit, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S. Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj.
5. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S. Baikunthpur,
District - Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 364 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17645 of 2023
======================================================
Rina Kumari Daughter of Vikram Narayan Singh, Resident of Village and
P.O.- Khetith, P.S.- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Development Officer-cum-Secretary, Block Teacher Employment
Unit, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S. - Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj.
5. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S. - Baikunthpur,
District - Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 365 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10732 of 2023
======================================================
Niku Wife of Sri Mukesh Kumar Shukla, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Khajuhatti, P.S.- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S.-Baikunthpur,
District-Gopalganj.
5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Dharmbari, Block and P.S.-
Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
19/103
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 367 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18173 of 2023
======================================================
1. Sarita Kumari @ Sarita Devi Prem Kumar Prasad, Resident of Village-
Musehari, Police Station- Jamo Bazar, District Siwan.
2. Manoj Kumar Singh son of Yogendra Singh resident of village - Hariharpur
(Kala), Police Station- Goreyakothi, District Siwan.
3. Ajit Kumar Singh son of Shri Thakur Singh resident of village -Hariharpur
(Kala), Police Station- Goreyakothi, District Siwan.
4. Anuj Singh son of Amarjit Singh resident of village - Mirzapur, Gorea
Kothi, Police Station - Goreyakothi, District - Siwan.
5. Ghanshyam Tiwari son of Harishankar Tiwari resident of village- Hulas
Chapra, Police Station- Goreyakothi, District- Siwan.
6. Hari Mohan Tiwary Son of Ramendar Tiwary resident of House No. 106,
Madhuban Enclave, G.T. Road, Khera Dharmpura, Police Station- Gautam
Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
7. Mritunjay Kumar Pandey Son of Raghaw Rabindra Pandey resident of
village Goriakothi, Police Station -Goriakothi, District - Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary-cum- the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
5. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) Siwan.
7. The Chairman of Block Employment Committee-cum-Prakhand Pramukh,
Goreyakothi, District - Siwan
8. The Block Development Officer, Goreyakothi, Siwan.
9. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Goreyakothi, Siwan.
10. The Block Education Officer, Goreyakothi, Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 369 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11891 of 2024
======================================================
1. Gyan Prakash Singh Son of Niteshwar Prasad Singh Resident of village-
Narharpur, Post Office- Kishunpur, District- Siwan.
2. Vimlesh Kumar Singh, Son of Sachhidanand Singh Resident of Village-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
20/103
Shekhpura, Post Office- Mahual Mahal, District- Siwan.
3. Ajay Kumar, Son of Kashinath Pandey Resident of Village- Bhamitola, Post
Office- Uchkagagar, District- Siwan.
4. Krishnaji Prasad, Son of Shreeram Sah Resident of Village- Uchkagav, Post
Office- Uchakagav, District- Siwan.
5. Ajmat Parwin, Daughter of Md. Asalam Resident of Village- Kadipur, Post
Office- Nagra, District- Chhapra.
6. Abhay Kumar, Son of Savliya Prasad Resident of Village- Mahpur, Post
Office- Siwan, Police Station- O.P. Sarai, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.
6. The Block Education Officer, Basantpur, District- Siwan.
7. The B.D.O. -Cum- Secretary, Block Teacher Niyojan Unit, Block- Basantpur
Block, District- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 370 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11461 of 2024
======================================================
Puja Kumari Wife of Sunil Singh and Daughter of Ramnaresh Singh,
Resident of Village- Karn Kudariya, P.O.- Dumarsan Bangra, Kundariya, P.S-
Masrak, District- Gopalganj. At present residing at Village- Marwa, P.S-
Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The Secretary Teacher Employment Unit-cum-Block Development Officer,
Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
6. The Member-cum-Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
21/103
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 371 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9062 of 2024
======================================================
Ramita Kumari Wife of Sri Manoj Kumar, Resident of Village- Basantpur,
PS- Basantpur, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
4. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.
6. The Block Development Officer, Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.
7. The Block Education Officer, Block- Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.
8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Rajapur, Bhagwanpur Hat,
District- Siwan.
9. Headmaster, New Primary School, Banbey Chourauli, Block- Bhagwanpur
Hat, District- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 372 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9061 of 2024
======================================================
Prem Prakash Dubey Son of Atma Nand Dubey, resident of Village- Nagwa,
P.O.- Charauli, P.S.-Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
4. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.
6. The Block Development Officer, Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.
7. The Block Education Officer, Block- Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.
8. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
22/103
Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.
9. Headmaster, Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Chaugethiya, P.S. and Block-
Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 373 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1120 of 2023
======================================================
Meera Kumari @ Mira Kumari Daughter of Krishna Pandit Resident of
Village-Harpur Tegarahi, P.S.- Mahammadpur, District-Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kashi Tegarahi, Block and
P.S.- Sidhwaliya, District- Gopalganj.
7. The Mukhiya-cum-Chairman of Panchayat Employment Committee, Gram
Panchayat Raj, Kashi Tegarahi, Block and P.S.- Sidhwaliya, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 374 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1124 of 2023
======================================================
Arjun Kumar Thakur Son of Sri Bikrama Thakur Resident of Village-Usri
Mahalmunj, P.O.- Paharpur, P.S.- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Development Officer, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S.-Baikunthpur,
District-Gopalganj.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
23/103
5. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S.-Baikunthpur,
District-Gopalganj.
6. The Mukhiya-Cum-Chairman, Panchayat Teachers Employment Committee,
Gram Panchayat Raj, Dighwa South, Block and P.S.-Baikunthpur, District-
Gopalganj.
7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Dighwa South, Block and
P.S.-Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj.
.
.. ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 376 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12923 of 2022
======================================================
Noorain Son of Late Md. Eakabal, Resident of Village- Vishunpura, P.S.-
Sidhwaliya, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary now the Additional Chief
Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary now the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 377 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17728 of 2022
======================================================
Sujit Kumar Singh son of Sri Nagendra Singh, Resident of Village-
Mahammadpur, P.O.- Tekhniwas, P.S.- Mahammadpur, District- Goplaganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Development Officer, Barauli, P.O. and P.S - Barauli, District -
Gopalganj.
5. The Block Education Officer, Barauli, P.O. and P.S. - Barauli, District -
Gopalganj.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
24/103
6. The Mukhiya-cum-Chairman, Panchayat Teachers Employment Committee,
Gram Panchayat Raj, Kahla, Block and P.S. - Barauli, District - Gopalganj.
7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kahla, Block and P.S. -
Barauli, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 379 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.908 of 2023
======================================================
Kameshwar Prasad Yadav Son of Sri Bangali Ray, Resident of Village-
Mahrani,. P.O.- Dighwar Dubauli, P.S. Mahammadpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Development Officer, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S.- Baikunthpur,
District- Gopalganj.
5. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S.- Baikunthpur,
District- Gopalganj.
6. The Mukhiya-cum-Chairman, Panchayat Teachers Employment Committee,
Gram Panchayat Raj, Ajabinagar, Block and P.S.- Baikunthpur, District-
Gopalganj.
7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Ajabinagar, Block and P.S.-
Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 382 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17762 of 2023
======================================================
Babita Kumari Wife of Shri Rajesh Thakur @ Rajesh Singh Resident of
Village- Mairi Makhsusdpur, Post Office- Chakia, Police Station -
Bhagwanpur Hat, District Siwan. At Present Posted and Working as a
Panchayat Teacher in Govt. Primary School Mairi Makhsuspur, Anchal -
Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principle Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms,
Govt. of Bihar.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
25/103
2. The Additional Chief Secretary-Cum-Principal Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
5. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) Education, Siwan.
7. The Block Development Officer, (Establishment) Education, Siwan.
8. The Block Education Officer, Block - Bhagwanpur Hat, District - Siwan.
9. That Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Balha Eraji, Anchal
Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 385 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4496 of 2024
======================================================
Anchal Kumari Wife of Shri Raju Yadav @ Raju Kumar Yadav, Resident of
Village-Markan, Post Office-Markan, Police Station - Hussainganj, District-
Siwan. At present posted and working as a Panchayat Teacher in Govt.
Primary School Korara Sahwazpur, Anchal- Hussainganjg, District- Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary -cum- the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
5. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) Siwan.
7. The Block Development Officer, Hussainganj, Siwan.
8. The Block Education Officer, Hussainganj, Siwan.
9. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Hussainganj, Siwan.
10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Habibganj, Anchal -
Hussainganj, District - Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 386 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13526 of 2023
======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
26/103
1. Sharwan Kumar S/o Biadya Narayan Prasad Resident of Village - Sumaka,
P.S. Chandi, District- Nalanda, Presently Posted as Primary School,
Sirnawan, Block - Chandi, District- Nalanda.
2. Indrajeet Kumar S/o Etwari Prasad R/o Village and P.O. Kauri, P.S. -
Noorsarai, District- Nalanda, Presently posted as Primary School, Sirnawan,
Block - Chandi, Nalanda.
3. Arbind Kumar S/o Nandu Singh Yadav, R/o Village Porajeet, P.O. -
Sirnawan, P.S. Bena, District Nalanda, Presently posted at Primary School,
Porajeet, Block- Chandi, District- Nalanda.
4. Sintu Kumar S/o Kishori Prasad R/o Village, P.O. - Pilich, P.S. - Parwalpur,
District Nalanda, Primary School, Sirnawan Block- Chandi, Nalanda.
5. Mithilesh Kumar S/o Ramprit Prasad R/o Village and P.O. - Sirnawan, P.S.
Ben District Nalanda, Primary School, Porajeet Block- Chandi, Nalanda.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Nalanda.
5. The District Programme Officer (Estb.), Nalanda.
6. Block Development Officer, Chandi, District- Nalanda.
7. The Block Education Officer, Chandi, P.O. and P.S. Chandi, District-
Nalanda.
8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sirnawan, Block - Chandi,
District- Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 388 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16458 of 2023
======================================================
Mamta Kumari @ Mamata Kumari Wife of Sri Yogendra Kumar, Resident of
Sri Ram Nagar, Hajiyapur, Ward No. 26, P.S. - Gopalganj Town, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Phulwariya, P.O. and P.S. - Phulwariya,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
27/103
District- Gopalganj.
5. The Block Education Officer, Phulwariya, P.O. and P.S. Phulwariya,
District- Gopalganj.
6. The Mukhiya-cum-Chairman, Panchayat Employment Committee, Gram
Panchayat Raj, Churamanchak, P.O. and P.S. - Phulwariya, District-
Gopalganj.
7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Churamanchak, P.O. and P.S.
- Phulwariya, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3883 of 2024
======================================================
Ganesh Kumar Singh S/o Dwarika Nath Singh, R/o Village- Dharmbari, P.S. -
Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, New Secretariate, Patna.
2. That Appellate Authority through its Chairman Education Department SC-D
Niyojan Bhawan, Baley Road Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
4. The District Programme Officer,(establishment) Gopalganj, Education
Department, District- Gopalganj.
5. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 391 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10955 of 2022
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Yadav Son of Sri Yogendra Chaudhary, Resident of Village
Sahebganj, Derwa, P.O. - Sonagarhwa, P.S. - Gopalpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Government of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat,
Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
5. The Block Employment Unit, Panchdewari through its Member Secretary
the Block Development Officer, Panchdewari, P.O. and P.S. - Panchdewari,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
28/103
District- Gopalganj.
6. The Block Education Officer, Panchdewari, P.O. and P.S. - Panchdewari,
District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 396 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1116 of 2023
======================================================
Kumari Anamika Singh Daughter of Yogendra Singh Resident of Village-
Bijulpur, P.S. - Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sirisiya, Block and P.S.
Kuchaikote, District- Gopalganj.
7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sirsiya, Block and P.S. - Kuchaikote,
District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 397 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3718 of 2024
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar Singh Son of Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, Resident of Village -
Chamanpura, P.o. - Chamanpura, District- Gopalganj, worked as Block
Teacher, Upgraded Middle School, Pyarepur, Block - Baikunthpur, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
4. The Block Development Officer-cum-Secretary, Block Teacher Employment
Unit, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S. - Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
5. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, P.O. and P.S.- Baikunthpur,
District- Gopalganj.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
29/103
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 406 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15450 of 2022
======================================================
Kanhaiya Kumar Paswan @ Kanhaiya Kumar Pasban Son of Munshi Paswan
Resident of Village-Dularpur P.S. Fulawariya District-Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Est), Gopalganj.
6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj-Virndaban, District -
Gopalganj.
7. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Majhikha Kala, Block- Fulwariya, District -
Gopalganj.
8. The Block Development Officer Fulwariya, District - Gopalganj.
9. The Block Education Officer Fulwariya, District -Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 415 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1037 of 2023
======================================================
Kiran Kumari D/o of Uma Manjhi Resident of Village-Bhendiya, P.S.-Thawe,
District-Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Estab), Gopalganj
6. The Block Development Officer, Gopalganj
7. The Block Education Officer, Gopalganj
8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Chauram, Gopalganj.
9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Chauram, Gopalganj.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
30/103
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 420 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15766 of 2022
======================================================
Amire Azam Son of Master Aainuddin, Resident of Village - Alampur, P.O. -
Mahamadpur, P.S. - Jamo Bazar, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
5. The Block Development Officer, Uchhakagaon, District- Gopalganj.
6. The Block Education Officer, Uchhakagaon, District- Gopalganj.
7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Dahibhata, Block- Uchhakagaon,
District- Gopalganj.
8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Dahibhata, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 428 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15093 of 2022
======================================================
Vyas Kumar Singh Son of Jaleshwar Singh, Resident of Village- Khajuriya,
P.S. - Sidhwaliya, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Estb), Gopalganj, Bihar.
6. Gram Panchayat Raj, Dumar Narendra, Sidhawaliya, Gopalganj.
7. The Mukhiya-cum-Chairman, Niyojan Unit, Gram Panchayat Raj, Dumar
Narendra, Gopalganj.
8. The Panchayat Secretary, Niyojan Unit, Gram Panchayat Raj, Dumar
Narendra, Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
31/103
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 429 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18315 of 2023
======================================================
Fulmati Shaw D/o Ram Nagina Shaw, Resident of Village- Shahpur Hata Tola
P.O. and P.S. Gopalpur, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Deptt. Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
2. District Magistrate, District- Gopalganj.
3. Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. District Education Officer, District- Gopalganj.
5. District Programme Officer (Establishment), District- Gopalganj.
6. The Block Education Officer, Kuchaikot, District- Gopalganj.
7. The Panchayat Secretary-cum-Secretary Employment Unit Gram Panchayat
Bankatta, Kuchaikot, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 504 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3103 of 2024
======================================================
Anil Kumar Srivastva Son of Late Laxman Prasad @ Laxuman Prasad
Resident of Village - Bhagwanpur, P.S. - Thawe, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary, Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment),), Gopalganj.
6. The Block Education Officer, Barauli, District Gopalganj.
7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Devapur, Barauli, District -
Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 521 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12183 of 2024
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
32/103
======================================================
Pintu Kumar Rai Son of Bashishth Rai Resident of Village-Sher, P.S.-
Sidhwaliya, District-Gopalganj, Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education, Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna. Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
6. The Block Education Officer, Barauli, Gopalganj.
7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Sonbarsa, Barauli, Gopalganj.
8. The Mukhiya-Cum-Chairman, Panchayat Employment Committee, Barauli,
Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 601 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.335 of 2022
======================================================
Sant Kumar Prasad Son of Ram Ayodhya Prasad, Resident of Village-
Nipaniya, P.O.- Salempur, P.S.- Isuapur, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary. Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, District - Saran at Chapra.
4. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra, District Saran at Chapra.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Saran at Chapra, District -
Saran at Chapra.
6. The Block Development Officer, Isuapur Block, District -Saran at Chapra.
7. The Block Education Officer, Isuapur Block, District Saran at Chapra.
8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Nipaniya, Block Isuapur, District -
Saran at Chapra.
9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Nipaniya, Block - Isuapur,
District - Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
33/103
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 315 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Shrishti Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, AC to GA-V
Mr. Ajay, Advocate
Ms. Nivedita Choudhary, Adv.
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 287 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Akshat Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Shreyashi Raj, Adv.
Mr. Pushkar Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, AC to AAG-13
Mr. Abhinav Alok, AC to AAG-13
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 288 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Akshat Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Shreyashi Raj, Adv.
Mr. Pushkar Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 293 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Adv.
Mr. Ankit, Adv.
Mr. Aman Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shambhu Sharan Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 294 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ankit, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 297 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ankit, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 301 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ankit, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 302 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ankit, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 303 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ankit, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 308 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ankit, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 310 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ankit, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 314 of 2025)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
34/103
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 316 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Advocate General
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 327 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 330 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 342 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 344 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 346 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 347 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 350 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 351 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 352 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 353 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 354 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Bhuneshwar Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 357 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 358 of 2025)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
35/103
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Bhuneshwar Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 359 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 362 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 364 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 365 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 367 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 369 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 370 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 371 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Shaswat Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 372 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Shaswat Anand, Advocate
Mr. Shivesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 373 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 374 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 376 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
36/103
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 377 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv.
Ms. Aasiha Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Kanupriya, Adv.
Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 379 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 382 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
Ms. Sheshadri Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Kashyap, Adv.
Mr. Nawnit Kumar Tiwary, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, AC to AAG-12
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 385 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 386 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AAG 13
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 388 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AAG 13
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 391 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 396 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 397 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Adv.
Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AAG 13
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 406 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Pratap Yadav, Adv.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
37/103
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 415 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ankit, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 420 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ankit, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 428 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Pratap Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 429 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Pratap Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 504 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ankit, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 521 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ankit, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Advocate General
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 601 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)
Date : 24-04-2026
We have meticulously heard the learned Senior
Advocates and Advocates appearing in this batch of the appeals
on behalf of the respective parties.
2. Considering the fact that in all the intra court
appeals, challenge has been led to the judgment dated
07.03.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
cluster of writ petitions, being C.W.J.C. No. 16170 of 2022 and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
38/103
other analogous cases, with the consent of the parties, the same
have been taken up together and being disposed of by this
common judgment/order.
3. For better appreciation of the issues involved in
this batch of the appeals, this Court deems it apt and proper to
give the short facts of the cases, which in sum and substance,
are similar and duly narrated in the impugned judgment/order;
which led to filing of the present Letters Patent Appeals before
this Court.
4. The writ petitioners-appellants herein were the
candidates for the post of Panchayat Teacher/Prakhand Teacher
under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Recruitment and
Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 and its amended Rules, 2008.
Having found eligible, the appellants had applied for the post of
Panchayat Teacher/Prakhand Teacher in the year 2006 and some
of them in the year 2008, during the 1st and 2nd phase of the
appointment process. The name of the appellants were duly
included in the merit list and called upon for counselling.
However, after the final selection process, these appellants were
not appointed to the said post.
5. Subsequently, certain selected candidates either
resigned or voluntarily vacated the post after serving for a few
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
39/103
years in the year 2012 or latter. Upon acquiring knowledge of
these vacancies, the writ petitioners-appellants approached the
District Appellate Authorities, in the year 2016 and 2017,
seeking their appointment against the said posts. Considering
the grievances of the writ petitioners-appellants and the
submissions made by the Panchayat Secretaries, the District
Appellate Authorities allowed the appeals in their favour. In
pursuance of the orders of the District Appellate Authorities,
finally their cases were duly considered by the respondent
Employment Units and accordingly their appointments were
facilitated on the post of Panchayat Teachers/Prakhand Teachers
within their respective districts.
6. In the aforesaid premise, all the writ petitioners-
appellants submitted their consent letters and assumed charge at
the designated schools. However, despite submissions of their
joining on the said post, they were not allowed salaries.
Consequently, the number of the petitioners approached this
Court by filing various writ petitions in the year ranging from
2022 to 2024. Upon adjudication of these matters, the Court
allowed the writ petitions, directing the competent authorities to
verify the claims of the petitioners and ensure the disbursement
of their salaries accordingly.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
40/103
7. The respondent State authorities having came to
know about the appointment of the writ petitioners and faced
with the orders of the different Benches of this Court
approached the State Appellate Authority, challenging the orders
passed by the District Appellate Authorities. The writ petitioners
were noticed and upon adjudication, the State Appellate
Authority finally allowed the appeals filed by respondent State
authorities, thereby setting aside the appointment of the writ
petitioners with retrospective effect from their respective dates
of appointment and the District Education Officers of the
concerned districts were directed to recover all payments
disbursed to the writ petitioners.
8. Aggrieved with the orders of the State Appellate
Authority passed in identical manner and fashion, the writ
petitioners have challenged those orders in different writ
petitions before this Court.
9. The learned Single Judge considering the
common question of facts and law involved in all the writ
petitions heard the matters analogously and disposed of the
same by a common judgment/order dated 07.03.2025 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 16170 of 2022 and other analogous cases, which
is questioned before this Court by filing the present intra Court
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
41/103
appeals.
10. The learned Single Judge after having tendered
due consideration to the submissions of the respective parties
and taking note of the materials available on record culled out
the points for consideration, inter alia, as follows:
“(i) Whether the District Appellate
Authorities have the power to pass an order
regarding appointments against the vacancies
from the first phase held in 2006, which were
later carried forward to the second phase in 2008
and concluded in December 2010, and if so,
whether an appointment made by the authorities
after the closure of the first and second phase
appointments remains valid?
(ii) Whether the delay in filing of
case by the petitioners before the District
Appellate Authorities, as well as the delay by the
District Programme Officers in appealing against
the order of the District Appellate Authorities
without providing a satisfactory reason before
the District Appellate Authorities and the State
Appellate Authority, respectively, can be
condoned?
(iii) Whether the District Appellate
Authorities, while passing its order, failed to
appreciate and consider Letter No. 465 dated
09.07.2012 issued by the Principal Secretary of
the Education Department?”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
42/103
11. To answer the 1st point framed hereinabove, the
learned Single Judge highlighting the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs.
Rajkishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777, State of Punjab Vs.
Raghbir Chand Sharma, (2002) 1 SCC 113, as also the order
passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.
No. 1398 of 2013 and the order of a learned coordinate Bench
of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7481 of 2014 opined that
the recruitment process for the first phase and second phase of
2006 and 2008 appointment was conclusively completed by the
year 2010 and the writ petitioners in the batch of the cases were
applicants in the first and second phase of recruitment for the
said post, hence any vacancies that arose in the 2012 or later on
would be categorized as future vacancies and could not be
considered under the concluded phases of recruitment process.
Allowing the petitioners’ claims by the District Appellate
Authorities, held to be in direct contravention of the settled legal
principles laid down in the above referred cases; accordingly,
the order of the District Appellate Authorities have been found
to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India, rendering them legally unsustainable.”
12. The learned Single Judge further went to hold
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
43/103
that the authorities would have arbitrarily excluded other
eligible candidates based on a mere presumption that either they
were disinterested in employment or they had forfeited their
rights by not approaching the District Appellate Authorities.
Such an approach would be manifestly unjust and in violation of
the principles enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
13. Furthermore, in case the District Appellate
Authorities had found merit in the claim of the petitioners’, the
matter ought to have been referred to the Employment
Committee, which is vested with the power to make such
appointments. Failure to adhere to this legal procedural
requirement renders the decision of the District Appellate
Authorities legally unsustainable.
14. The jurisdiction of the District Appellate
Authorities have been questioned in view of the prescription of
the Rules, 2006 and Rules, 2008, which duly prescribed the
Block Development Officer, as the competent authority to
adjudicate the complaints.
15. Answering the point no.(ii), the learned Single
Judge has held that the writ petitioners inexplicably delayed the
filing of their appeals before the District Appellate Authorities
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
44/103
for a period exceeding six to eight years, notwithstanding the
facts of the case of the writ petitioners was not one where they
were overlooked in favor of another candidate; rather, it pertains
to appointments on posts that became vacant in 2012 and later
on. The learned Single Judge also observed that in the appeal
before the District Appellate Authorities, the petitioners
deliberately omitted to implead the District Programme Officer,
District Education Officer, and other relevant officials of the
Education Department, as necessary parties. This calculated
omission resulted into failure to present a comprehensive and
accurate account of the matter before the adjudicating authority
and thereby directly affected respondent State authorities.
16. In the considered opinion of the Court, the
appeals preferred by the petitioners before the District Appellate
Authorities is held to be barred by limitation, as they have failed
to provide any cogent justification or plausible explanation for
the inordinate delay in approaching the District Appellate
Authorities. However, with respect to the issue of condonation
of delay in filing the appeal before the State Appellate Authority
by the respondent State authorities, the learned Single Judge
referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Collector (Land Acquisition) Vs. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
45/103
107 and the guidelines enunciated in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani, (1996) 3 SCC 132 as well as the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal no.
2474 of 2012, has observed that substantial justice must prevail
over technical considerations, and that a pragmatic and just
approach should be adopted while dealing with delay in filing
the appeals. The learned Single Judge further underscored the
mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that no one gets away
with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse
to the technicalities of law of limitation and held that appeals
filed by the State if stands dismissed on the ground of delay
attributable to the default of an officer or employee, the ultimate
casualty in such instances is public interest. In public interest,
hence some reasonable latitude be extended to the State in the
matters where the delay is neither mala fide nor indicative of
gross negligence. The Court finds that the State Appellate
Authority has rightly exercised its discretion in condoning the
delay in filing the appeal by the Respondent Authorities.
17. Answering the point no.(iii), the learned Single
Judge has been pleased to hold that the District Appellate
Authorities failed to consider and apply the directives contained
in Letter No. 465 dated 09.07.2012 while rendering its decision.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
46/103
The said letter issued by the Principal Secretary of the
Education Department clearly prescribes that the remaining
vacancies upon completion of 1st and 2nd phase of appointment
shall be merged with 3rd phase of 2012.
18. After having elaborately responded to the points
formulated in the batch of the writ petitions, finally the learned
Single Judge upheld the order of the State Appellate Authority
and consequently dismissed all the writ petitions and disposed
off all the interlocutory applications accordingly.
19. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate
representing the appellants in L.P.A. No. 315 of 2025 and other
analogous cases has submitted with all his vehemence that the
learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that it is not a case
wherein the appellants had secured appointment on the basis of
any forged certificate or concealment. In absence of any finding
that the writ petitioners-appellants any how concealed the
materials facts or committed fraud upon the District Appellate
Authority or the Employment unit, any finding of the learned
Single Judge in this regard is wholly erroneous and baseless.
The respondent State authorities had not advanced any sufficient
cause in filing the appeals before the State Appellate Authority
after inordinate delay of more than six years and in the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
47/103
meanwhile, the decision of the District Appellate Authority had
been duly complied by the Employment unit in the year 2017
itself, hence in any view of the matter, the appeal preferred by
the State authorities ought to be dismissed on account of
inordinate delay. Reliance has also been placed on a decision
rendered in H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah Since
Deceased By Lrs., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 54, where the
Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that while considering the plea for
condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of
the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the
bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking
condonation.
20. Mr. Giri, learned Senior Advocate further
argued that the vacancies against which the appellants were
appointed had not been carried forward/merged with future
vacancies, if that being so, the appellants could not have been
appointed by the Employment unit. Moreover, the appointments
of the writ petitioners-appellants were made on the basis of the
orders of the District Appellate Authorities, who are the
competent authority to decide the issues under the statutory
rules framed, in exercise of power under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. It is further contended that the learned
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
48/103
Single Judge failed to appreciate that no rival claims were raised
against the appointments of the appellants either before the State
Appellate Authority or this Court, hence the writ petitioners-
appellants, who were possessing proper qualification in terms of
the prevailing rules and had been discharging their duties for
several years, their appointments should not have been
disturbed.
21. Referring to the order passed by the State
Appellate Authority, it is further contended that the appellants
before the State Appellate Authority were the District
Programme Officer (Establishment) and the Block Education
Officer, who do not have any locus standi to challenge the order
of the District Appellate Authority as they were neither the
parties to the appeal before the District Appellate Authority nor
the relevant Rules recognize them.
22. This Court has also been reminded that the
Hon’ble Court not only acts as a Court of law, but also as a
Court of equity, and in the present case, the equity lies in favour
of the appellants. Mr. Giri, learned Senior Advocate further
contended that the order of the State Appellate Authority cannot
be allowed to sustain in law, as it exceeded its jurisdiction in
directing for retrospective termination of the writ petitioners-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
49/103
appellants and for recovery of salary already paid to the writ
petitioners-appellants against the services rendered by them.
23. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Advocate
with Mr. S. S. Sundram, learned Advocate for the appellants in
L.P.A. No. 293 of 2025 and other analogous appeals have taken
this Court through the order passed by the concerned District
Appellate Authority, also the order of the State Appellate
Authority and submitted at the Bar that the facts of the case of
appellants, on whose behalf they are appearing are different to
other. In their cases, in the light of the order of the District
Appellate Authority, the employment unit has considered cases
of the respective writ petitioners-appellants herein and on being
found having requisite qualification in terms with the prevalent
rules, they were duly appointed. While reiterating the
submissions tendered by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Y. V. Giri,
it is further contended that the explanation for condonation of
delay of 4-6 years was not sufficient explanation, rather the
District Programme Officer (Establishment)/District Education
Officer have submitted that the delay has occurred because they
recently joined their respective offices. Since the decision of the
employment unit was an independent decision, providing fresh
cause of action; without there being any challenge by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
50/103
employment unit, the cancellation of the appointment of the writ
petitioners-appellants at the instance of the District Education
Officer/District Programme Officer (Establishment), by the
State Appellate Authority amounts to traveling beyond the relief
sought for in the appeal preferred by the State authorities.
Moreover, the District Programme Officer (Establishment) was
neither authorized by the State Government to challenge the
order of the District Appellate Authority nor he had the locus to
challenge the same on account of the fact that he was not a party
before the District Appellate Authority.
24. Mr. Mauli, learned Senior Advocate strenuously
argued that the order passed by the State Appellate Authority in
absence of a judicial Chairperson is without jurisdiction, as has
been held by a Single Bench of this Court in Pradip Kumar
Yadav & Pradeep Kumar Yadav & others Vs. State of Bihar
and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 17508 of 2021 and other analogous
cases). Relying upon the said judgment, a Bench of this Court in
the case of Shobha Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors,
(C.W.J.C. No. 12632 of 2025), 2025 (4) PLJR 1 and Sonam
Kumari Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 9257 of
2024) has reiterated the said proposition. It is need to be noted
that the aforesaid order passed in Shobha Kumari and Sonam
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
51/103
Kumari (supra) has been authored by one of us (Harish Kumar,
J).
25. It is lastly contended that the State Appellate
Authority, wrongly recorded that the State authorities were not
made party before the District Appellate Authority, rather the
Block Selection Committee was a party in which the Block
Education Extension Officer and Block Education Officer were
the members.
26. Adding further to the submissions recorded
hereinabove, Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate
in L.P.A. No. 287 of 2025 and L.P.A. No. 288 of 2025 and other
analogous case submitted that the appellants applied for their
appointment as Panchayat Teachers in pursuant to the 2 nd Phase
of selection process initiated in the year 2008, irrespective of
their good position in the merit list, they were not declared
successful. However, subsequently, when the vacancies have
arisen on account of resignation of some of the Panchayat
Teachers, they approached before the District Appellate
Authority and, accordingly, on being found eligible, in pursuant
to the order passed by the District Appellate Authority,
Employment Unit issued appointment letters in their favour,
hence in any circumstances, the selection of the appellants was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
52/103
to be governed by the Rules, as were in existence in the year
2008. It is vehemently contended that the admission of the
appeal by the State Appellate Authority comprising only of
Chairman (Administration), who was a retired officer and in
absence of Chairman (Judicial), who happens to be the retired
Judge of the High Court, the entire proceeding at the behest of
the State authorities, who were not even the party before the
District Appellate Authority is wholly unsustainable and without
jurisdiction. The entire action and the order of the State
Appellate Authority is said to be in contravention of the
provisions contained in Rule 4(3) of the Bihar State School
Teachers and Employees Disputes Redressal Rules, 2020, hence
the impugned orders passed by the State Appellate Authority are
liable to be quashed on account of coram non-judice.
27. To support the aforesaid contention, reliance
has been placed on the decisions rendered in Chief Engineer,
Hydel Project & Ors. Vs. Ravinder Nath & Ors., 2008 (2) SCC
350 and Managing Director, Bhoruka Textiles Ltd. Vs.
Kashmiri Rice Industries, (2009) 7 SCC 521 where the Court in
no uncertain term held that judgment and decree passed by a
court or tribunal lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity
and its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
53/103
sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of
execution and even in collateral proceedings. The defect of
jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any
decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of
parties.
28. Representing the appellants in L.P.A. No. 314
of 2025 and other analogous appeals, Mr. Umesh Kumar
Mishra, learned Advocate reiterating the above referred
submissions further argued that the learned Single Judge while
dismissing the writ petition has failed to consider the fact that
the appellants had been regularly pursuing their cases for their
appointment and finally they approached the District Appellate
Authority, when their repeated request has not been acceded.
The Education Department, Government of Bihar vide its letter
has clarified that the post, which falls vacant after cancellation
of appointment of illegally appointed teacher, the District
Appellate Authority can direct for filling up of the said vacant
post, hence the order of the District Appellate Authority cannot
be termed as illegal. The consolidated order passed by the
learned Single Judge is not proper, as the facts of each cases are
different, which ought to have been considered. The learned
Single Judge also failed to appreciate that the cases relied upon
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
54/103
by the appellants in C.W.J.C. No. 277 of 2012 dated
06.01.2012, the Court had directed for appointment of the
concerned petitioners therein even in the year 2012. Moreover
in C.W.J.C. No. 19754 of 2021 dated 19.09.2022, the order of
the learned State Appellate Authority was set aside and the order
of the District Appellate Authority has been upheld, which is
exactly similar to the employment of the teachers with the case
of these petitioners-appellants. He also reiterated the
submissions that the Chairman (Administration) has/had no
jurisdiction to consider and dispose of the appeal in absence of
the Chairman, (Judicial).
29. To buttress the aforesaid submissions, reliance
has also been placed on the decision rendered in C.W.J.C. No.
17508 of 2021 (Pradip Kumar Yadav @ Pradeep Kumar Yadav
Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and other analogous cases.
30. While adopting above referred arguments,
learned Advocate representing the appellant in L.P.A. No. 372
of 2025 has submitted that apart from the order of the State
Appellate Authority and the order/judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge are wholly unsustainable in law, the action
of the respondent authorities is per se illegal, as they have
availed two remedies at a time, as on one hand the State had
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
55/103
filed an application before the District Appellate Authority for
review and on the other hand, without withdrawing the same,
the order has been challenged before the State Appellate
Authority. The application for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal before the Appellate Authority also suffers from
suppression and wrong facts and moreover the entire process
has taken place without giving any proper information to the
higher authorities.
31. Learned Advocate for the appellant in L.P.A.
No. 429 of 2025 and L.P.A. No. 377 of 2025 further submitted
that finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the
District Appellate Authority lacks jurisdiction and the Block
Development Officer was the competent authority to adjudicate
the issue is wholly erroneous and unsustainable in law. Letter
no. 287 dated 09.04.2010, issued by the Principal Secretary,
Education Department clearly provided that all complaints and
appeals related to the Teachers Recruitment and Service
Condition shall be filed only before the District Appellate
Authority, who has been vested with the exclusive jurisdiction
to entertain and decide such matter. It is further submitted that
letter no. 7 dated 05.07.2010 further clarified that where the
appointing authorities were unable to complete the appointment
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
56/103
of selected candidates within time, in such circumstances, the
Employment Unit shall complete the process after taking
consent of Education Department.
32. Battery of Advocates, appearing in other L.P.As
have also adopted the submissions of the learned Senior
Advocates/Advocates
33. Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional
Advocate General-13, Mr. Prateek Kumar, as well as other
learned Advocates representing the State respondents in their
respective cases have vehemently refuted the contention of the
appellants. Dispelling the primary contention of the appellants
that the vacancies have arisen consequent upon death and
resignation of Panchayat/Block Teachers appointed in 1st and 2nd
Phase appointment giving cause of action for getting
appointment on the basis of merit list prepared in the year 2007-
08 is said to be wholly fallacious and lacks support of law.
Consequent upon coming of a new Teachers Appointment
Rules, 2012, the Education Department vide its letter no. 465
dated 09.07.2012 clearly stipulated that remaining vacancies
upon completion of 2nd phase appointment shall be merged with
the 3rd phase of 2012 and, as such, no appointment can be made
unless there is a specific dispute pending consideration before
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
57/103
any forum. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that a merit list with
regard to appointment and selection for the public post is only
for one year and, as such, they do not have cause of action for
putting their grievance. [vide Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. Vs.
West Bengal Board of Primary Education & Ors., (2024) 15
SCC 90]. Further reliance has also been placed in the case of
State of Punjab Vs. Raghbir Chand Sharma & Anr., AIR 2001
SC 2900 that no candidate can claim that he would have been
offered appointment on account of vacancy arose due to
resignation or otherwise.
34. Reference has also been made to the decision
rendered in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. Vs Rajkishore
Nanda & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2100 where the Court held that If
the selection process is over and merit list has expired and
appointments had been made, then no relief can be granted. The
writ petitioners have approached the District Appellate
Authority after a period of 5 to 7 years and that too without any
cause of action. Further the appointment was prohibited from
the said merit list and no vacant post has to be merged with the
3rd phase appointment of 2012, as per new Rules, 2012.
35. The application or any case filed before the
District Appellate Authority was wholly without jurisdiction, as
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
58/103
in respect to the selection and appointment to the post of
Panchayat Teachers/Block Teachers for 2nd phase, the competent
authority was the Block Development Officer as well as the
Deputy Development Commissioner respectively. Moreover, it
is not the case of the writ petitioners that they have filed
complaint initially before the Block Development
Officer/Deputy Development Commissioner, which remained
pending till constitution of the District Appellate Authority
[Vide: L.P.A. No. 984 of 2014 (Manohar Prasad Vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors.)].
36. The writ petitioners deliberately did not make
the District Education Officer, District Programme Officer and
other officers of the Education Department as party respondents
before the District Appellate Authority, so that in their absence
positive orders be passed in favour of the writ petitioners. It is
also alleged that the Block Development Officer-cum-Secretary
of Block Employment Unit as well as employment units were
hand in glove with the petitioners. The conduct of the writ
petitioners was amounting to an act of deliberate deception with
the design of securing something by taking advantage of unfair
and other.
37. Learned Advocate for the State further
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
59/103
contended that if for any reason, the District Appellate Authority
was of the view that the vacancies arisen on account of
resignation or otherwise, it should be filled up from the same
appointment process, then it should have given opportunity to
all the candidates figuring in the merit list, particularly to those,
who were higher to the writ petitioners and, as such, there is
clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Since the very appointment of the writ petitioners was illegal,
void, ab initio and was a project of fraud and, as such, salary
earned consequently is recoverable in view of the ratio laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rita Mishra
Vs. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, AIR 1988 Pat 26.
38. The reliance placed by the State Appellate
Authority in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of
Kerala & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1469 is apparently applicable in
the facts of the case. The contention of the appellants that the
appointment should be sustained on the basis of principle of
equity is, per se, untenable in view of the settled proposition of
law that equity can only supplement the law and not supplant or
override it, particularly where exists a conflict between equity
and the law, it is the law that prevails. The reference may be
taken to a decision rendered in the case of Raghunath Rai
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
60/103
Bareja and Another Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others,
2007 (2) SCC 230.
39. While concluding the submissions, learned
Senior Advocates/Advocates for the State have submitted that
the findings arrived at by the State Appellate Authority has
rightly not been interfered by the learned Single Judge, as it is
neither suffering from any perversity nor contrary to any
material evidences, rather it is based on sound principle of law.
The writ court while exercising the prerogative writ jurisdiction
cannot re-appreciate the evidence, which is available before the
statutory Tribunal, and the view taken by such Tribunal cannot
be substituted by the writ court solely considering that based on
such evidence an another view is possible.
40. After having extensively and carefully heard the
learned Senior Advocates/Advocates for the respective parties
and going through the materials available on record as well as
the order/judgment of the learned Single Judge, the following
issues culled out for consideration before the Court in the batch
of this intra Court appeals:
ISSUES
(I) As to whether the order passed by the State
Appellate Authority in absence of Chairman (Judicial) in terms
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
61/103
with Rules, 2020 suffers from the vice of Coram non-judice and
thus unsustainable in law?
(II) Whether the delay condoned by the State
Appellate Authority in filing of appeals after a period of six
years from the order of District Appellate Authority is legal and
sustainable in law, in view of the submissions led by the
appellants that no sufficient and reasonable cause for delay has
been explained?
(III) Whether the District Education Officer/District
Programme Officer and the Block Education Officer had the
locus standi to file the appeal before the State Appellate
Authority despite not being a party in any lis before the District
Appellate Authority and whether they are not estopped from
filing appeal after appointing the writ petitioners against the
respective posts of Panchayat/Prakhand Teachers?
(IV) Whether the life of the merit list of
Panchayat/Prakhand Teachers pertaining to selection process of
2006-2008 can revive on account of resignation and other
reasons subsequently in the year 2012 and onwards?
(V) Whether the writ petitioners, who were the
participants of the 2nd phase of the selection process held in the
year 2006 and 2008 could have been appointed after coming
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
62/103
into force of Rules, 2012 by committing procedural bypass,
despite and having not possessing the qualification of Teacher
Eligibility Test (TET)?
(VI) Whether the order of retrospective termination
of the writ petitioners from the date of appointment and
directions for recovery of salary disbursed to them is sustainable
in law in the facts of this case?
41. Issue no. I: As to whether the order passed by
the State Appellate Authority in absence of Chairman
(Judicial) in terms with Rules, 2020 suffers from the vice of
Coram non-judice and thus unsustainable in law?
41.1. Before answering the issue, it would be apt
and proper to take note of the prescriptions under which the
structure of Appellate Authority has been incorporated and
established. The Government of Bihar in exercise of the powers
conferred under Articles 162 and 243, Section 47 read with
Section 146 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, Sections 46, 47
read with Section 419 of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, Section 38
of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 and Section 14 of the Bihar Private Schools (Fee
Regulation) Act, 2019, has framed the Bihar State Teaching
Institutions Teachers and Employees (Disputes Redressal and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
63/103
Appeal) Rules, 2020. Rule 2(iii) of Part-I defines the Appellate
Authority means the District Appellate Authority constituted at
the district level and the Appellate Authority constituted at the
State level, under the provisions of these Rules. 2(v) defines the
‘Chairman’, means the Chairman of the State Appellate
Authority. Rule 3 of Part-2 of Rules, 2020 deals with
constitution of the Appellate Authority which reads as follows:
“3. Constitution of Appellate Authority.-(i) The
State Govt. shall constitute District Appellate
Authority at the District level who shall perform
the powers and functions, conferred under these
Rules. There will be two members who shall act as
Presiding Officer.
(ii) The State Govt. shall constitute State Appellate
Authority at the State level, having two chairman to
hear appeal against the decisions/orders passed by
the District Appellate Authority and Divisional
Level Fee Regulation Committee.
(iii) The scope and distribution of work between the
Presiding Officers/Chairman of the Appellate
Authority shall be determined by the department,
from time to time.”
41.2. Rule 4(iii) of Part-2 of Rules, 2020 provides
that there shall be two separate Chairman in the State Appellate
Authority. One of the Chairman shall be the retired Justice of
the Hon’ble High Court and the other Chairman shall be the
retired officer of the Indian Administrative Service in the rank,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
64/103
not below than the Principal Secretary. The State Government,
may authorise any Chairman to discharge the duty of another
Chairman. Part-3 of Rules 2020 deals with powers and function
of the District Appellate Authority as well as the State Appellate
Authority which, inter alia, provides that the authority shall
hear the appeal against the decision of the District Appellate
Authority, provided any application/complaint has been filed
within 30 days from the date of passing of the final order but the
authority will have the jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing
the appeal, if there exits reasonable grounds. The State
Appellate Authority shall have the same powers for enquiry of
any matter or hearing which has been vested with the Civil
Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. While adjudicating
any dispute, Rule 17 of Rules 2020 clearly says that all the
functions of the authority shall be deemed to be the judicial
function under the provisions of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of
the Indian Penal Code.
41.3. For proper appreciation of the Rules noted
hereinabove, it would be imperative to get insightful assistance
from the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which
highlighted and crystallized the object and the issue through
various decisions. In the case of Amulya Chandra Kalita Vs.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
65/103
Union of India & Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 181, (overruled) while
examining the validity of the constitution of Administrative
Tribunal referring to the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985
established under Section 4 of the said Act read with Section
5(1) which sets out the constitution of the Tribunal and adds that
the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal may be
exercised by Benches thereof, held that the prescription
statutorily recognised that every Bench of the Tribunal must
consist of a Judicial Member and an Administrative Member. It
is, therefore, obvious that the Administrative Member alone
could not have heard and decided the matter. The aforesaid
decision rendered in Amulya Chandra Kalita (supra) has been
overruled in Dr. Mahabal Ram Vs. Indian Council of
Agriculture Research, (1994) 2 SCC 401, by holding as
follows:
“6. Sub-sections (2) and (6) appearing as limbs of
the same section have to be harmoniously
construed. There is no doubt that what has been
said in Sampath Kumar case [(1987) 1 SCC 124 :
(1987) 2 ATC 82 : AIR 1987 SC 386 : (1987) 1
SCR 435] would require safeguarding the interest
of litigants in the matter of disposal of their
disputes in a judicious way. Where complex
questions of law would be involved the dispute
would require serious consideration and thorough
examination. There would, however, be many cases
before the Tribunal where very often no
constitutional issues or even legal points would be
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
66/103
involved. Mr Ramamurthi, Senior Counsel,
suggested to us in course of the hearing that
keeping the principles indicated in the
Constitutional Bench judgment in view, the Single
Member contemplated under sub-section (6) should
be meant to cover a judicial member only. That
view may perhaps not be appropriate to adopt. On
the other hand, we are prepared to safeguard the
interests of claimants who go before the Tribunal
by holding that while allocating work to the Single
Member — whether judicial or administrative — in
terms of sub-section (6), the Chairman should keep
in view the nature of the litigation and where
questions of law and for interpretation of
constitutional provisions are involved they should
not be assigned to a Single Member. In fact, the
proviso itself indicates Parliament's concern to
safeguard the interest of claimants by casting an
obligation on the Chairman and Members who
hear the cases to refer to a regular bench of two
members such cases which in their opinion require
to be heard by a bench of two Members. We would
like to add that it would be open to either party
appearing before a Single Member to suggest to the
Member hearing the matter that it should go to a
bench of two Members. The Member should
ordinarily allow the matter to go to a bench of two
Members when so requested. This would
sufficiently protect the interests of the claimants
and even of the administrative system whose
litigations may be before the Single Member for
disposal. To make a distinction between Judicial
Member and Administrative Member functioning
under sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act may
not be appropriate and, therefore, we have not been
able to accept the approach suggested by Mr
Ramamurthi. The observation made in the two-
Judge Bench case that no provision was cited to
them that a Single Member could hear cases laid
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
67/103
before the Tribunal led to the conclusion that the
judicial business of the Administrative Tribunal
was intended to be carried by a bench of two
Members. The vires of sub-section (6) has not been
under challenge and, therefore, both the provisions
in Section 5 have to be construed keeping the
legislative intention in view. We are of the view that
what we have indicated above brings out the true
legislative intention and the prescription in sub-
section (2) and the exemption in sub-section (6) are
rationalised.”
41.4. In Dr. Mahabal Ram, the Hon’ble Court
while reiterating the law laid down in S.P. Sampath Kumar Etc
vs Union of India & Ors., (1987) 1 SCC 124 has observed that
the interest of litigants would require to be safeguarded in the
matter of disposal of their disputes in judicious way. It would be
pertinent to note that the approach adopted in the case of Dr.
Mahabal Ram (supra) is held to be correct by a 7-Judge
Constitution Bench in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs Union
of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261, since it harmoniously
resolved the manner in which Section 5(2) and 5(6) can operate
together. The Constitution Bench however further clarified that
where a question involving the interpretation of a statutory
provision or rule in relation to the Constitution arises for the
consideration of a single Member Bench of the Administrative
Tribunal, the proviso to Section 5(6) of the Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985 will automatically apply and the Chairman
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
68/103
or the Member concerned shall refer the matter to a Bench
consisting of at least two Members, one of whom must be a
Judicial Member. This will ensure that questions involving the
vires of a statutory provision or rule will never arise for
adjudication before a single Member Bench or a Bench which
does not consist of a Judicial Member. It is only by this way that
the Court held Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunal Act,
1985 will no longer be susceptible to charges of
unconstitutionality.
41.5. The Constitution Bench in its penultimate
paragraph considering all the aspects has also ruled that “It
must be remembered that the setting-up of these Tribunals is
founded on the premise that specialist bodies comprising both
trained administrators and those with judicial experience
would, by virtue of their specialised knowledge, be better
equipped to dispense speedy and efficient justice. It was
expected that a judicious mix of judicial members and those
with grass- roots experience would best serve this purpose. To
hold that the Tribunal should consist only of judicial members
would attack the primary basis of the theory pursuant to
which they have been constituted. Since the Selection
Committee is now headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
69/103
nominated by the Chief Justice of India, we have reason to
believe that the Committee would take care to ensure that
administrative members are chosen from amongst those who
have some background to deal with such cases”.
41.6. In State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Utility Users’
Welfare Association & Ors., (2018) 6 SCC 21 referring to the
mandate led by the Constitution Bench to the decision in
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India & Anr., (2010) 11
SCC 1 (MJ-I) and further in Madras Bar Association vs Union
of India & Anr, (2014) 10 SCC 1 (MJ-II) observed that the
Members of the Tribunal discharging judicial functions could
only be appointed from sources possessing expertise in law and
competence to discharge judicial functions.
41.7. Summing up the legal positions as narrated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, this
Court feels it worth benefiting to refer the observations made by
the Constitution Bench in the case of Madras Bar Association
(MJ-II) (supra) where the Court said that “the legislature is
presumed not to legislate contrary to the rule of law and
therefore know that where disputes are to be adjudicated by a
Judicial Body other than Courts, its standards should
approximately be the same as to what is expected of main
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
70/103
stream Judiciary. Rule of law can be meaningful only if there
is an independent and impartial judiciary to render justice. An
independent judiciary can exist only when persons with
competence, ability and independence with impeccable
character man the judicial institutions. When the legislature
proposes to substitute a Tribunal in place of the High Court to
exercise the jurisdiction which the High Court is exercising, it
goes without saying that the standards expected from the
Judicial Members of the Tribunal and standards applied for
appointing such members, should be as nearly as possible as
applicable to High Court Judges, which are apart from a basic
degree in law, rich experience in the practice of law,
independent outlook, integrity, character and good reputation.
It is also implied that only men of standing who have special
expertise in the field to which the Tribunal relates, will be
eligible for appointment as Technical members. Therefore,
only persons with a judicial background, that is, those who
have been or are Judges of the High Court and lawyers with
the prescribed experience, who are eligible for appointment as
High Court Judges, can be considered for appointment of
Judicial Members”.
41.8. In the afore-noted legal background, now
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
71/103
coming to the prescriptions noted hereinabove, especially Rules
3 and 4 of Rules, 2020 which deals with Constitution of the
Appellate Authority and its structure. It is evident that the
legislature has provided two separate Chairman in the State
Appellate Authority; one of which shall be a retired Justice of
the Hon’ble High Court, whereas another Chairman shall be the
retired officer of the Indian Administrative Service, not below
than the Principal Secretary. The said prescription further
mandates that the State Government, may authorise any
Chairman to discharge the duty of another Chairman. This
provision further gets clarified from reading of rule 3(iii) which
says that the scope and distribution of work between the
Presiding Officer/Chairman of the Appellate Authority shall be
determined by the Department from time to time.
41.9. Carefully reviewing the prescription, this
Court through his office requested Mr. Abhinay Raj, panel
lawyer of the State as to whether the State Government has
come out with any notification authorising the Chairman to
discharge the duty of another Chairman or there is any
letter/notification which further clarify the scope and
distribution of the work between the Chairmans of the State
Appellate Authority. The aforesaid query was enquired through
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
72/103
Smt. Rekha, Secretary, State Appellate Authority, who conveyed
this Court through Mr. Abhinay that till date there is no such
letter/notification by the State Government and/or by the
Department of Education. Irrespective of the fact, there is no
such notification/letter by the State Government or the
Department prescribing distribution of work between the
Chairman of the Appellate Authority, since the Rules
specifically provides constitution of the State Appellate
Authority having two separate Chairman and the power for
distribution of work and authorization by the State Government
to discharge the duty of another Chairman clearly suggests that
both the Chairmen may hear the cases separately allotted to
them; hence even in absence of such notification/letter once the
function of the authority shall be deemed to be judicial function,
any order of the authority cannot be questioned on this score
alone. However, where questions of law and interpretation of
constitutional/statutory provisions are involved, it should be
heard by a Bench consisting of both the Chairman (Judicial) and
the Chairman (Administrative). In such eventuality, it would
also be open to either party appearing before the Chairman
(Administrative) to make a prayer to refer the matter to a Bench
consisting of Member (Judicial), if complicated question of law
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
73/103
is involved. This would sufficiently, in all circumstances, protect
the interest of the claimants and even all the administrative
system, when litigation may be placed before the Chairman
(Administrative).
41.10. Since the vires of any of the provisions of
Rules, 2020 are neither under challenge nor even alleged to be
ultra vires of the Constitution, in the opinion of this Court, it
would be appropriate to give a harmonious construction to the
statutory provisions to ensure that the State Appellate Authority
carries out its function more effectively in resolving the disputes
in terms with the relevant provisions of the Rules, 2020.
41.11. Before parting with the conclusion, it would
be unjust and improper on our part, if we fail to take note of the
submission led by the learned Advocate for the appellants that
one of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
Pradip Kumar Yadav @ Pradeep Kumar Yadav & Ors. vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors. and other analogous cases [C.W.C.J. No.
17508 of 2021] dated 17.04.2025 has held that the order passed
by the Chairperson of the State Appellate Authority, who was an
officer of Indian Administrative Service, can only be held to be
without jurisdiction and placing reliance upon the said judgment
as well as the order rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 12632 of 2025
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
74/103
[Shobha Kumari vs. State of Bihar & Ors.], 2025 (4) PLJR 1,
besides the other grounds, one of us (Harish Kumar, J.) in
C.W.C.J. No. 9257 of 2024 [Sonam Kumari vs. State of Bihar
& Ors.] has concurred the view and set aside the order passed
by the State Appellate Authority by holding it suffers from
illegality.
41.12. Bare reading of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 17508 of 2021, besides the
fact that the order/judgment has been put to challenge before the
learned Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 500 of 2025 and the
operation of the order is stayed, with due respect to the learned
Single Judge, there is no discussion pertaining to the
prescription of Rules, 2020 in the light of the decisions rendered
by the Apex Court discussed in the aforegoing paragraphs,
rather the order in C.W.J.C. No. 17508 of 2021 is in relation to
the prescriptions provided under the Bihar State School
Teachers and Employees Disputes Redressal Rules, 2015, which
stood repealed with effect from the date of issuance of the
notification contained in Memo No. 07/Pradhi-4/2016-715 dated
25.08.2020, whereby Rules, 2020 has been brought into force.
However, we made it clear that the view taken by this Court
shall have its application prospectively till such prescription of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
75/103
Rule, 2020 holds the field. Moreover, this Court may not find
any legal impediment in dealing with the issue on merit in
reference to the statutory scheme and also the judicial
precedents, which aspects have not been dealt with by the
learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9257 of 2024 and other
above referred cases.
41.13. After making elaborate discussions and
highlighting the relevant prescriptions of the Rules, 2020 as well
as legal position referred hereinabove, this Court unanimously
comes to the conclusion that the order passed by the State
Appellate Authority in absence of Chairman (Judicial) in terms
with Rule 4(iii) does not suffer from vice of Coram non judice.
We answered accordingly.
42. Issue no. II: Whether the delay condoned by
the State Appellate Authority in filing of appeals after a period
of six years from the order of District Appellate Authority is
legal and sustainable in law, in view of the submissions led by
the appellants that no sufficient and reasonable cause for
delay has been explained?
42.1. Before responding to the afore-noted issue, it
would be pertinent to take note of the law of limitation which is
enshrined in the legal maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
76/103
litium" (it is in the interest of the state that there be an end to
litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights
of the party, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be
kept alive for a legislative fixed period of time. The vested right
of a party should not be disrupted at the instance of the person,
who is guilty of culpable negligence. [vide: Ramchandra
Shankar Deodhar & Ors vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
(1974) 1 SCC 317 and K.R. Mudgal & Ors vs R.P. Singh &
Ors., (1986) 4 SCC 531].
42.2. It is well settled that in order to determine as
to whether there was a sufficient cause for non-appearance, it is
required to be examined whether the mistake was bonafide or
was merely a device to cover an anterior purpose, however, the
Court has cautioned that while making such consideration
regarding a sufficient cause, the court must bear in mind the
object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned.
And that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the
court from imparting such substantial justice and doing away
the illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned
[Vide: State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh &
Anr. , (2000) 9 SCC 94]. It would be worth benefiting to take
note of the decision rendered in N. Balakrishnan vs. M.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
77/103
Krishnamurty, (1998) 7 SCC 123, where the Hon’ble Apex
Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of
delay, observed as under:
“The primary function of a court is to adjudicate
the dispute between the parties and to advance
substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching
the court in different situations in not because on
the expiry of such time a bad cause would
transform into a good cause. Rule of limitation are
not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are
meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory
tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. the object
of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage
caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation
fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the
redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is
precious and the wasted time would never revisit.
During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up
necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy
by approaching the courts. So a life span must be
fixed for each remedy. Unending period for
launching the remedy may lead to unending
uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of
limitation is thus founded on public policy.”
42.3. In O.P. Kathpalia vs Lakhmir Singh (Dead)
& Ors. , (1984) 4 SCC 66, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
if the refusal to condone the delay results in gross miscarriage of
justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. The law of
limitation is, no doubt, the same for private citizen as for
Government-authorities. State like any other litigant must take
responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
78/103
somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where
Government makes out a case where public interest suffers
owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or
agents, where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it.
A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It
is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government
must have ‘a little play at the joints’. Due recognition of these
limitations on Governmental functioning-of course, within a
reasonable limit- is necessary if the judicial approach is not to
be rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and
unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same
footing in all respects in such matters. [vide: G. Ramegowda,
Major, Etc vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengalore,
(1988) 2 SCC 142].
42.4. We must keep it in our mind as to whether
circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which
is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches.
When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted
against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be
preferred; for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right
in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay.
[vide: Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
79/103
Katiji & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and Tukaram Kana Joshi &
Ors. and Thr. Poa Holder Vs. M.I.D.C. & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC
353]. It would also be relevant to take note of the decision
rendered in H. D. Vora Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
(1984) 2 SCC 337, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned
30 years delay in approaching the Court where it found violation
of substantive legal rights of the applicants. In that case, the
requisition of premises made by the State was assailed.
42.5. Coming to the facts of the case at hand, the
appellants have approached the Court after a long delay of
completion of the recruitment process held under Rules, 2006
and subsequently in the year 2008 by impleadings the members
of the Employment Unit as opposite parties before the District
Appellate Authority in the year 2016-17; the same was
entertained and orders have been passed. Accordingly, the writ
petitioners-appellants herein were appointed. However, in none
of the application filed before the District Appellate Authority,
the higher authority of the Education Department and the State
Government were made as opposite parties, since their
appointments were not to the knowledge and in approval of the
State Government and its authorities, they were not being
allowed salary/honorarium. In such circumstances, they
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
80/103
approached this Court where different Benches of this Court
directed to ensure salary/honorarium for the period they have
discharged their duties to the respective posts. It is only then the
State Government and its higher authority of the Department of
Education came to know and challenge the order of the District
Appellate Authority by filing different appeals before the State
Appellate Authority. It is only in such circumstances, the
authorities competent in this behalf moved an appeal against the
order affecting the right and public interest even at the belated
stage with a prayer to condone the delay. At this juncture, it
would be worth benefitting to refer a decision rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, where the Hon’ble
Court referring to a decision rendered in Ramchandra Shankar
Deodhar (supra) as well as various other decisions have
concluded that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient
cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if
in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should
not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation. Since in the
present case also the facts clearly reveal that the authorities of
the Education Department and the State of Bihar had not been
made party before the District Appellate Authority and the State
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
81/103
Appellate Authority is empowered under Rules, 2020 having
jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the appeal, we do not
find that there was no sufficient and reasonable cause for
condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before the State
Appellate Authority and accordingly no fault is found in the
order of the State Appellate Authority condoning the delay.
This Court further observed that the reliance led by
the appellants on the decision rendered in the case of H.
Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
54, where the Court has reminded the District judiciary as well
the High courts that the concepts such as “liberal approach”,
“Justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be
employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation
and further while considering the plea for condonation of delay,
the Court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The
court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the
explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. Since this
Court finds that the sufficient cause has been assigned by the
appellants in approaching the State Appellate Authority as
referred hereinabove, the reliance placed by the appellants on
the decision in H. Guruswamy (supra) with all respect is not
applicable in the facts of this case.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
82/103
We answered this issue accordingly.
43. Issue no. III: Whether the District Education
Officer/District Programme Officer and the Block Education
Officer had the locus standi to file the appeal before the State
Appellate Authority despite not being a party in any lis before
the District Appellate Authority and whether they are not
estopped from filing appeal after appointing the writ
petitioners against the respective posts of
Panchayat/Prakhand Teachers?
43.1. It is trite that the party/authority, whose order
is sought to be quashed and the authority under whose control
they function are necessary party if a case is instituted against
the Members of the Employment Unit, who are the statutory
functionaries regulated by the authorities of the Education
Department as well as the State. In absence of the State or its
instrumentalities and its higher authorities, who are ultimately
concerned with the subject matter or would have been affected
by the outcome of the case, must be made party to the lis in all
fairness of the things. Non-impleadment of the authorities, who
is/are responsible for ultimate regulation of the
Department/Institution would certainly cast a shadow of doubt
of collusion and/or move to obtain a favourable order in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
83/103
connivance with the officials of the Departments/Institutions,
who are standing in his/their favour.
43.2. Conferring rights or benefits on the writ
petitioners-appellants, who had consciously participated in a
well thought out, and meticulously orchestrated plan, to
circumvent well laid down norms, for gaining employment
would amount to espousing the cause of "the unfair".
43.3. It is no longer res integra that any order made
on a writ petition affecting the interest of a party who has not
been arrayed as a respondent could be invalidated on the ground
of breach of natural justice or the order in no manner would be
applicable to them. However, it must be kept in mind that
suppression of even single material fact may be fatal before the
Writ Court. It would be useful to refer the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s S.J.S. Business
Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2004 SC
2421, where the law has succinctly been stated as follows:
“13. As a general rule, suppression of a material
fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from
obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out
of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from
abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the
suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense
that had it not been suppressed it would have had
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
84/103
an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a
matter which was material for the consideration of
the court, whatever view the court may have
taken.”
43.4. The State and its authorities, in fact, are under
bounden duty to challenge an order, which will affect sanctity of
recruitment process and cause injustice at large, even through
they have not been made party to a lis, either knowingly or
unknowingly. Any illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated
or ignored as the same will not only violate Articles 14 of the
Constitution, but cause distrust upon the system, which is
governed by rule of law
44. Issue no. IV: Whether or not the life of the
merit list of Panchayat/Prakhand Teachers pertaining to
selection process of 2006-2008 can revive on account of
resignation and other reasons subsequently in the year 2012
and onwards?
44.1. To answer the question formulated
hereinabove, it would be pertinent to take note of the relevant
prescriptions of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers
(Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 and its
Amended Rules, 2008.
Bare reading of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
85/103
(Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rule, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Rule, 2006’) and its amended Rule, 2008, it
appears that the same has been duly framed in exercise of
powers provided under Article 243 G of Constitution of India
and Sections 47 and 48 to be read with section 146 of Bihar
Panchayti Raj Act, 2007 In the light of the amended provision of
Article 21-A of the constitution of India, which mandate free
and compulsory education to the children from the age of 6 to
14 years. Rule 8 of Rule, 2006 provided the eligibility criteria
for appointment to the post of Prakhand/Panchayat Teacher,
which categorically provides that the candidate must have the
qualification of Intermediate or equivalent degree along with
two years Teachers Training Diploma/Certificate from any
institution having recognition from the NCTE or other
equivalent degree, as has been provided therein is not necessary
for this list to be explained exhaustively. The procedure of the
recruitment has been duly prescribed in Rule 9, which contains
the constitution of the Committee for preparation of panel and
recruitment of Prakhand/Panchayat Teacher. It is made clear that
the members selected for panel shall have the tenure of one year.
After preparation of the panel objection shall be invited and
after resolving the objection the panel shall be finalized. In case
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
86/103
of any dispute in relation to Employment and Service Condition
of the Prakhand/Panchayat Teacher in terms with the Rule,
2006, the Block Development Officer/Deputy Development
Commissioner shall have all the power to decide such dispute,
however, subsequently in view of the amendment vide
notification no. 1056 dated 03.07.2009 in the amended Rules,
2008, the Appellate Authority was directed to be constituted in
each district by the State Government, for which the Human
Resources Development Department shall prescribe the
condition.
44.2. Bare reading of the aforesaid prescription
what has surfaced is that the life of the merit list has not been
prescribed but the tenure of the Members of the Employment
Unit shall be only for one year. Hence, even if the period of
merit list has not been prescribed, the law in this regard is very
clear that the life of a panel ordinarily is one year and the same
can be extended only by the State and that too if the statutory
rule permits it to do so. Admittedly, there is no such rule
extending any power to any of the Employment Unit or the
State to extend the life of a merit list/panel. In the case of Union
of India & Ors. Vs. B. Valluvan & Ors, (2006) 8 SCC 686, the
Court held that once a panel stands exhausted upon filling up of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
87/103
all the posts, the question of enforcing a future panel would not
arise.
44.3. In the case of State of Orissa & Anr Vs.
Rajkishore Nanda & Ors., (2010) 6 SCC 777, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in no uncertain term has held that the select list
cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments,
that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as
and when it is so required. It is settled legal proposition that no
relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the Court
after expiry of the select list. If the selection process is over,
select list has expired and appointments had been made, no
relief can be granted by the Court at a belated stage.
44.4. The reliance placed by the learned Advocate
for the State on the decision of Ali Hossain Mandal and Ors
Vs. West Bengal Board of Primary Education and Ors., (2024)
15 SCC 90 also covers the issue formulated hereinabove where
the Court reiterating the decisions rendered in B. Valluvan,
Rajkishore Nanda (supra) as well as the decision in the case of
State of Bihar & Ors Vs. Md. Kalimuddin & Ors., (1996) 2
SCC 7 and in the case of Girdhar Kumar Dadhich & Anr Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 706, has ruled that
“the opinion expressed in the above judgments makes it clear
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
88/103
that a panel or a merit list cannot be treated as if it exists in
perpetuity, which will facilitate making appointments as and
when required. When the panel expires or after the selection
process is over with most posts being filled, the benefit of
appointments cannot be given unless the panel's validity is
legally extended. However, no such extension of the panel's
validity was granted.”
44.5. This Court also takes note of the decision
rendered by the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Tara Kant Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [LPA
No. 1398 of 2013], while the Court refuting the submissions of
the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is vacancy
subsists because of resignation of one of the selected candidates
on the well established principle of the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that vacancy caused after joining and resignation cannot be used
for the same to be filled up by any candidate from the panel as
the panel life comes to an end after the appointment process is
over.
44.6. After going through the decisions afore-noted
as also the relevant prescriptions of Rules, 2006 and its
Amended Rules, 2008, it is manifest that merely because the
name of a candidate finds place in the merit list, it would not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
89/103
give the candidate an indefeasible right to get an appointment as
well. With the appointment of the candidates against the post in
respect of which the consideration came to be made and a merit
list was prepared the date on which the recruitment process gets
completed. The panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility
and no one else in the panel can claim that he should have been
offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of
the subsequent resignation of the persons or on his death, who
were initially appointed from the panel, or any other vacancies
arising subsequently.
44.7. This Court, in the aforesaid premise, has no
hesitation to hold that the life of the panel, which was prepared
in terms with Rules, 2006 and its Amended Rules, 2008, cannot
be revived on account of resignation of persons appointed
subsequently in the year 2012 and onwards.
45. Issue no. V: Whether the writ petitioners, who
were the participants of the 2nd phase of the selection process
held in the year 2006 and 2008 could have been appointed
after coming into force of Rules, 2012 by committing
procedural bypass, despite having not possessing the
qualification of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)?
45.1. Once by the notification bearing No. 7/V.1-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
90/103
37/2010-241 dated 3rd April, 2012, the Government of Bihar,
exercising powers under Section 47 read with section 146 of the
Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, has come out with the Rules, 2012, all
the earlier prescriptions of 2006 Rules as well as its Amended
Rules, 2008 stood repealed. However, notwithstanding the
repealing of previous Act, the action taken under the previous
Rules and notification shall be deemed to be valid and will not
cause any effect to the service conditions of the Teachers, who
were appointed in terms with the previous Rules. The provisions
prescribed the procedure of employment under Rule 11 of Rules
2012 clearly suggests that the Government of Bihar through its
Employment Units shall inform the number of vacancies of the
Panchayat Teachers/Prakhand Teachers, whereupon applications
were invited. The eligibility for employment for the post of
Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher, besides other qualification of the
candidate, he/she must have passed the Teachers Eligibility Test.
Under the Rules of 2012, any vacancy arising in the year 2012
or thereafter on account of resignation, removal, or a finding
that the appointment was obtained through fraudulent means
shall be treated as a vacancy occurring in that year itself.
Accordingly, such vacancy shall be governed by the Rules of
2012 or the rules in force on the date on which the post falls
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
91/103
vacant. The claim of the person who had applied at the time of
initial recruitment would not survive. Reliance placed by the
learned Single Judge on a letter issued by the Principal
Secretary, Education Department bearing No. 465 dated
09.07.2012 further clarifies that the vacancies fallen after
coming into force the 2012 Rules would be filled up in terms
with 2012 Rules, except those with respect to which litigation is
pending. Admittedly, in these cases, there had never been any
challenge to the merit list prepared pursuant to Rules, 2006 and
its Amended Rules, 2008 and for the first time the writ
petitioners have approached before the District Appellate
Authority in the year 2016-17 without there being any valid
cause of action.
45.2. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court
comes to the conclusion that extending appointment to the
petitioners, who were the candidates of 2006 Rules and the
Amended Rules 2008 in the year 2017, after coming into force
of 2012 Rules, would amount to committing a procedural
bypass and a fraud by knowing well that the petitioners had not
passed the Teachers Eligibility Test and thereby not possessing
eligibility for appointment to the post of Panchayat
Teacher/Prakhand Teacher as required under Rules, 2012.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
92/103
46. Issue no. VI: Whether the order of
retrospective termination of the writ petitioners from the date
of appointment and directions for recovery of salary disbursed
to them is sustainable in law in the facts of this case?
46.1. True it is that there is no obligation on the
Court to protect an illegal appointment. The extraordinary
power of the court should be used only in an appropriate case to
advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights of others
or create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible
candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. Adherence to
the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of
our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our
Constitution, even the Court would certainly be disabled from
passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in
ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the
requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the
Constitution.
46.2. The constitution Bench in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and
Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 while reiterating the aforesaid
proposition has reminded us that consistent with the scheme for
public employment, this Court while laying down the law,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
93/103
unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after
a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would
not confer any right on the appointee. Employment under the
State constitutes a national wealth. Every person eligible has a
right to apply and be considered under Article 14 of the
Constitution. The selection therefore has to be by open
advertisement, equal opportunity for participation to the eligible
and competitive merit selection. To dilute the requirement in
any manner, shall not only be subverting the entire
Constitutional scheme but shall also open the flood gates of
favouritism, nepotism and corruption reducing public
employment to pocket boroughs. The opening of a Service Book
and enhancement of salary cannot confer the camouflage of
legality on such an illegal appointment. Considering such illegal
appointments it was observed in the case of Delhi Development
Horticulture Employees’ Union Vs. Delhi Administration,
(1992) 4 SCC 99 “the courts can take judicial notice of the fact
that such employment is sought and given directly for various
illegal considerations. Once a person appointed in rank,
illegally, cannot complain that the termination procedure was
arbitrary. Those who came in through the back door must go out
through the same door as observed in the case of State of U.P.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
94/103
Vs. U.P. State Law Officers’ Association, (1994) 2 SCC 204.
46.3. Conferring the rights and benefits on the writ
petitioners, who had no cause of action, left after completion of
the recruitment process under Rule, 2006 and amended Rule,
2008; yet they moved the District Appellate Authority in the
year 2016 and 2017 that too when the earlier rules were already
replaced by a new Rule, 2012, which prescribes the eligibility of
a candidate must have passed the Teachers’ Eligibility Test; it is
nothing but, a well-thought-out, meticulous, and “orchestrated”
plan to circumvent well laid down norms for gaining
employment.
46.4. From the record, it is evident that there is no
material to show that vacancy occurring owing to resignation or
other reason have not been carried forward to the next
recruitment process; and even for the sake of argument, if it is
accepted for the time being that certain posts remained vacant,
in such circumstances, those vacancies, which had arisen on
account of the resignation or otherwise should be filled up from
a fresh selection process strictly in consonance with the
constitutional scheme after giving opportunity to all the
candidates figuring in the merit list, particularly, to those who
were higher to the writ petitioners, along with those prospective
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
95/103
candidates, who acquired eligibility on the date of fresh
selection. But the fact of this case depicts a sorry state of affairs,
the manner in which the petitioners have approached the District
Appellate Authority almost a delay of 7-8 years without
impleading the necessary parties, including State authorities of
the Education Department and secured the appointment after
getting the order from the District Appellate Authority.
46.5. Once this Court comes to the conclusion that
the appointment of all the writ petitioners is illegal and obtained
in a clandestine manner, no defect is found in the
order/judgment of the learned Single Judge in upholding and
affirming the order of the State Appellate Authority, but now the
only question left to be answered by this Court is as to whether
the State Appellate Authority was competent to pass the order of
termination with retrospective effect and direct for recovery of
salary.
46.6. This issue can very well be answered by
referring to a decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court
in the case of Rita Mishra (supra) where the learned Court has
underscored that the rights to salary, pension and other service
benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service.
Therefore, these rights, including the right to salary, spring from
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
96/103
a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that
the very appointment is illegal and is non-est in the eye of law,
no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of
pension and other monetary benefits can arise. In particular, if
the very appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right can
flow from it. Accepting the aforenoted settled legal position, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai
(supra), upon which heavy reliance has been placed by the State
Appellate Authority, has held as follows:
“...The rights to salary, pension and
other service benefits are entirely statutory in
nature in public service. The appellant obtained
the appointment against a post meant for a
reserved candidate by producing a false caste
certificate and by playing a fraud. His
appointment to the post was void and non est in
the eye of the law. The right to salary or pension
after retirement flows from a valid and legal
appointment. The consequential right of pension
and monetary benefits can be given only if the
appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits
cannot be given in a case where the appointment
was found to have been obtained fraudulently
and rested on a false caste certificate. A person
who entered the service by producing a false
caste certificate and obtained appointment for
the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
97/103
depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate
of appointment to that post, does not deserve any
sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person
who seeks equity must come with clean hands.
He, who comes to the court with false claims,
cannot plead equity nor would the court be
justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his
favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a
fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction
cannot be exercised in the case of a person who
got the appointment on the basis of a false caste
certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and
equitable consideration can come to his rescue.”
From the above referred discussions, it is culled out
that in case of Rita Mishra (supra), her appointment was rested
on forgery and similarly in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai
(supra) he had procured the appointment by producing a false
caste certificate of Scheduled Caste and thus deprived a genuine
Scheduled Caste candidates for appointment, hence the Court
held their appointment void ab initio and they do no deserve any
sympathy or indulgence of the Court. Now, we take up the facts
of this case; undoubtedly the cases of the petitioners are not
identical to the cases of Rita Mishra and R. Vishwanatha Pillai
(supra), where they had secured their appointment by playing
fraud upon the authorities. In the case at hand, the writ
petitioners have approached before the District Appellate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
98/103
Authority by bringing on record the facts, though without
impleading necessary parties and secured the appointment in
pursuant to the order of the District Appellate Authority, hence
in the opinion of this Court, the case of the writ petitioners-
appellants herein are not akin to the case of Rita Mishra and R.
Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) and their appointments are not, per
se, rested on forgery. Thus, in such circumstances, the
retrospective termination and direction for recovery of salary,
directed by the State Appellate Authority and upheld by the
learned Single Judge is not legally sustainable in law as well as
on facts. Accordingly, this issue is also answered.
Conclusion:
47. Keeping in mind the determination of all the
jurisdictional issues referred to hereinabove, we may
consciously conclude that the State Appellate Authority, in the
absence of the Chairman (Judicial), in terms of Rule 4(iii), does
not suffer from the vice of coram non judice in view of the
specific provisions of the Rules, 2020, which prescribe the
mode and manner of carrying out its functions in resolving
disputes, even separately by the bench of Chairman
(Administrative), unless the complex legal issue is not involved;
which would give harmonious effect to the legislative
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
99/103
enactment. Furthermore, the State Appellate Authority has not
committed any error in accepting the prayer for condonation of
delay in filing the respective appeals by the authorities of the
Education Department of the State, in the public interest, and
thereby prevented miscarriage of justice; especially when the
necessary parties were not arrayed as respondents before the
District Appellate Authority.
48. This Court also finds and holds that the State
and its authorities are under a constitutional obligation to uphold
the sanctity of the recruitment process, and whenever a severe
wrong is surfaced, at large, by an unfair manner through an
orchestrated plan, they are under a bounden duty to challenge
such an order, irrespective of the fact that they were not made a
party to the lis, either knowingly or unknowingly; as an
illegality cannot be sanctified by mere passage of time, unless it
is specifically protected in law, in any manner.
49. This Court has also concluded that the life of
the panel/merit list, duly prepared in terms of the Rules, 2006
and the amended Rules, 2008, cannot be revived on account of
the resignation or death of persons appointed subsequently in
the year 2012 and onwards, in absence of any specific provision
under the Statute. Hence, any appointment from the panel/merit
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
100/103
list, after having completed the earlier recruitment process long
back in the year 2008, cannot be saved and deemed it legal
under any circumstances after coming into force of the new
rules, which prescribe altogether an exclusive eligibility criteria,
which the writ petitioners do not possess. Extending
appointments to the petitioners, irrespective of the aforesaid
fact, would amount to a procedural bypass and a fraud on the
system, knowing well that the petitioners do not have the
requisite eligibility for appointment to the posts of Panchayat
Teachers/Prakhand Teachers, as required under the Rules, 2012.
50. In view of the reasons afore-noted, this Court
has held the appointments of all the writ petitioners to be illegal,
having no sanctity in the eyes of law and being dehors the
statutory prescriptions. Nonetheless, being conscious of the fact
that the appointments of the petitioners were not based on
forgery but rather on an illegal order of the District Appellate
Authority, the Court has found the retrospective termination and
the direction for recovery of salary to be not legally sustainable.
51. Before parting with this case, now we also
propose to deal with the submissions led by the learned Senior
Advocates/Advocates for the appellants that this Court is also a
Court of equity and in the present case the equity lies in favour
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
101/103
of the appellants.
52. We do not find any reason to approve
aforenoted contention in view of the well settled legal position
that whenever there is conflict between the law and equity, it is
law, which has to prevail.
53. Considerations of equity cannot prevail and do
not permit a High Court to pass an order contrary to the law, as
has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Council for Indian School Certificate Examination Vs. Isha
Mittal & Anr., (2000) 7 SCC 521.
54. We must keep in mind that equitable
consideration have no place where the statute contains express
provisions. What is administered in courts is justice according
to law and considerations of fair play and equity however
important they may be, must yield to clear and express
provisions of the law [vide Madamanchi Ramappa Vs.
Muthaluru Bojappa (AIR 1963 SC 1633) : E. Palanisamy Vs.
Palanisamy [(2003) 1 SCC 123].
55. It would be also worth noticing here that while
exercising Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, the Letters
Patent Bench only exercises the power of court of correction
and corrects its own orders in exercise of its power, as was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
102/103
vested in the single judge. The Division Bench ought not to
disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge
of the Court unless it is shown to be based on no evidence,
perverse, palpably unreasonable and unsustainable with any
particular position in law. The scope of interference is within a
narrow compass.
56. In view of the discussions referred
hereinbefore, we do not find any perversity and palpable
unreasonableness or any infirmity in the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge, which warrants any interference with the
same, except the affirmance made by the learned Single Judge
to the order of the State Appellate Authority whereby the
termination of the writ petitioners have been made with
retrospective effect with a direction of recovery of salary. Such
direction is hereby set aside. The termination of the writ
petitioners shall take effect from the order passed by the State
Appellate Authority in their respective cases, on which date the
order of the District Appellate Authority stood cancelled.
57. It is further made clear that if the writ
petitioners have been allowed salary for certain period, the same
shall not be recovered and would be only entitled to the salary
for the period they have rendered their services in their
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
103/103
respective schools after proper verification of the record, in this
regard.
58. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeals stand
dismissed, with only modification, as stated hereinabove, and
the direction in this regard.
59. No order as to costs.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ: I agree.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
uday/anjani/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 23.03.2026
Uploading Date 24.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…