Patna High Court
Poonam KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the direction to take action against the appellant for alleged misrepresentation is set aside.
Summary
The appellant, Ms. Poonam Kumari, challenged a Single Judge's order directing the Additional Chief Secretary of Education, Bihar to take action against her for allegedly misleading the court by filing a counter‑affidavit in a contempt petition. The petition arose from a dispute over the salary of a Panchayat Teacher, where the petitioner claimed the appointment was illegal under changed rules. The Single Judge had held that Ms. Kumari deliberately misled the court and ordered action against her. On appeal, counsel argued that the counter‑affidavit contained no false statements, the writ petition had already been disposed with full payment, and therefore the direction was untenable. The Court of Appeal found no misrepresentation, held the direction to take action was misconceived, set it aside, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the counter‑affidavit filed by Ms. Kumari contained false statements amounting to contempt of court.
- Whether the direction to the Additional Chief Secretary to take action against Ms. Kumari is legally sustainable.
- Whether the prior disposal of the writ petition renders the contempt petition moot.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- counter affidavit
- misrepresentation
- writ petition
- appointment rules
- education department
- Bihar
- letters patent appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.660 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15771 of 2021
======================================================
Poonam Kumari W/o- Ashok Kumar Resident of Mohalla- Ashiyana Nagar,
P.S.- Rajeev Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director (Primary Education), Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Nalanda.
4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda.
5. Sujeet Kumar Raut, S/o not known to the petitioner the then D.P.O.,
(Establishment), Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Shashi Priya Pathak, Advocate
Mr.Ambrish Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anjani Kumar AAG-4
Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, AC to AAG-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 12-01-2026
The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
appellant-Poonam Kumari challenging the order dated
05.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.
15771 of 2021.
2. Respondent no. 6-Shweta Prasad filed the aforesaid
writ petition with following relief:-
“(1) For issuance of writ(s) / direction(s) in
the name of Respondents to make payment of salary to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.660 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
2/6
the petitioner who is working on the post of Panchayat
Teacher in School, Jiyachak Navsrijit Primary under
Gram Panchayat Raj Barandi block- Rahui, Distt-
Nalanda from 03.07.2012 in view of appointment letter
issued on 27.06.2012 in terms of order issued through
memo no-235 dated 25.07.2011 by the Learned District
Teacher Appellate Authority, Nalanda in Appeal no-
57(A)/2011.
(II) For issuance order/orders, of writ/writs,
direction/directions which may deem fit and proper
under the facts of the case.”
3. When the notice was issued in the matter, the
present appellant filed the counter affidavit on 29.10.2021,
and the following statements were made therein:-
“6. That facts of the case under dispute in a
narrow is campus that the petitioner filed application
for her employment in the year 2008 before the Gram
panchayat Barandi under Rahui block but the petitioner
was not selected and appointed by the panchayat
employment unit, Barandi.
7. That it is not dispute that 2nd phase of
Block/panchayat teachers employment was concluded
in the month of December, with 2010 specific direction
that no employment shall be made after 31.12.2010
and all vacancies shall be carried forward for the third
phase of employment 2012.
8. That one employed panchayat teacher
tender his resignation due to appointment on regular
teacher in 34540 category, Thereafter, the petitioner
and two other candidates moved before the District
teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Nalanda
vide Appeal No. 57 (A) of 2011.
9. That the District Appellate Authority,
Siwan without considering the departmental guideline
and after completion of process of selection of
Block/Panchayat Teacher of 2nd phase, illegally
allowed the appeal with a direction to concerned
employment unit to appoint the petitioner as Panchayat
Teacher against the vacancy of 2008. (Annexure-3 of
the writ petition) vide order dated 25.7.2011
Patna High Court L.P.A No.660 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
3/6
(Annexure-2 of the writ petition).
10. That in compliance of the order passed
by District Appellate Authority, the Panchayat
Employment unit Barandi issued employment letter
vide letter no. 06 dated 27.6.2012 and posted in Newly
Primary School Barandi petition). (Annexure-3 of the
writ petition).
11. That it is relevant to state that at present
scenario, the employment has been made under Bihar
panchayat Elementary Employment Rule -2012 and
the process and criteria of employment of
panchayat/Block Teacher have been changed.
Therefore, employment of petitioner could not be
made against non existing vacancies. The said issue
has been decided by this Hon'ble court on 7.7.2015 in
C.W.J.C.NO. 6015 of 2015 (Md. Akil Vs. State of
Bihar and ors) in which clearly hold that-
"This application is
dismissed on the ground that no
appointment can belated stage on
made be the at post which was
advertised and exercise was complied
in the year 2008. In addition to that
rules have been changed and the
qualification and eligibility criteria
for appointment has been changed
any appointment now will be
governed by the present rules in the
play........ "
12. That however, in view of issuance of
letter of appointment by the Employment the unit,
petitioner discharging his duties against vacancy
Caused on account of resignation in the year 2012 of
one appointed candidate, Therefore any payment made
to the petitioner would amount of financial
irregularities.
13.That it is relevant to state that order of
District Teacher Appellate Authority Gopalganj has no
jurisdiction to direct the employment unit to any
appoint candidate against the vacancy caused due to
resignation of any candidate. The similar matter has
already been decided by the Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court in LPA NO. 1398 of 2013 on 17.02.17
with holding that-
"There is a vacancy subsisting
Patna High Court L.P.A No.660 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
4/6
because of resignation of one of the
selected candidates now is of no avail
because law is well settled in this regard
even. by the Apex Court that, any vacancy
caused after joining and resignation can not
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.”
4. The learned Single Judge while passing the
impugned order on 05.05.2025, came to held as follows:-
“3. In view of the above fact, though the
grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, but
what appears to be alarming to this Court is that the
manner in which the District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Education Department works, which
is reflected from the counter affidavit filed by the
predecessor of Mr. Sujit Kumar Raut, namely, Ms.
Poonam Kumari, aged about 47 years, wife of Ashok
Kumar, Resident of Ashiyana Nagar, P.S. Rajeev
Nagar, District Patna. The District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority, Nalanda in Appeal
No. 57A/2011 had granted relief to the petitioner,
which was required to be challenged or complied, but
I find that the informations contained in the counter
affidavit duly sworn on 29.10.2021 can only be said to
be in breach of the order dated 25.07.2011 passed by
the District Appellate Authority. Ms. Poonam Kumari
deliberately and willfully did not comply with the
order passed by the District Appellate Authority with
predetermined mind to deny the petitioner due salary
to which she was entitled to.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna is
directed to take appropriate action against Ms.
Poonam Kumari, after giving due opportunity to her,
who had misled the Court by filing counter affidavit
on behalf of the respondent no.6 when she was
holding the post of District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Nalanda and file an affidavit giving
details of the action taken by him.”
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.660 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
5/6
the counter affidavit, the appellant has not made any incorrect
statement and the relief that was sought for by the respondent
no. 6 has already been provided to her. She further drew
attention of this Court to the fact that the matter i.e. writ petition
has been finally disposed of on 22.07.2025 and the following
order was passed:-
“Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
and Ms. Namrata Singh, learned AC to Ex GA 12 for
the State.
2. Ms. Namrata Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State informs that the
petitioner has already been paid the entire amount due
to her and the State has also taken appropriate steps to
take action against the official, who had duly sworn on
29.10.2021 in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of
the respondent.
3. In view of the above information, the
present contempt petition is consigned.”
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that the writ petitioner has got the relief
sought for and there was no factual error in the statements made
in the counter affidavit and therefore, the direction issued by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned order to the Additional
Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna to take appropriate
action against the appellant on the ground that she had misled
the Court by filing counter affidavit is not sustainable in the eye
of law.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.660 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
6/6
7. Learned counsel for the State very fairly submits
that in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant, no statement
has been made which is factually incorrect.
8. In view of such submission, we are of the view that
the appellant has not misled the court by filing the counter
affidavit, and therefore, the direction given by the learned Single
Judge to the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna to take appropriate action against
the appellant is wholly misconceived and the same is therefore,
set aside.
9. The present Letters Patent Appeal is hereby
allowed.
10. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Sudhir Singh, J)
ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.01.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…