Patna High Court
BiharversusSanjay Kumar Tiwari
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The intra‑court appeal is dismissed as the Single Judge’s order, based on the parties’ agreement that the issue was already decided by binding Division Bench judgments, is not illegal or infirm.
Summary
The State of Bihar appealed an order of a Single Judge who, on the parties’ agreement that the salary‑related dispute of Sanskrit school teachers had already been decided by earlier Division Bench judgments, allowed the writ petition and granted consequential relief. The appellants argued that a pending restoration application should have kept the writ petition in abeyance, while the respondents contended that the issue was conclusively settled by binding precedent. The Court examined whether the Single Judge’s consent order was illegal or infirm. Relying on the principle that statements recorded in a judgment as made by counsel are conclusive (State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak), the Court found no material to challenge the recorded agreement. Consequently, the Court held that the parties could not re‑agitate the same issue in an intra‑court appeal and dismissed the appeal. The interlocutory application for condonation of delay was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Single Judge’s order, based on the parties’ agreement that the issue was already decided by binding Division Bench judgments, is illegal or infirm and liable to be set aside in an intra‑court appeal.
Subjects
- intra‑court appeal
- condonation of delay
- binding precedent
- consent order
- judicial record
- education resolution
- salary benefits
- Sanskrit schools
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.713 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14725 of 2023
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through Director, Secondary Education (Sanskrit),
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Special Director, Secondary Education Sanskrit, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, S/o Kanahaiya Tiwari Village - Chakia, P.S. and
District - Kaimur - 821108.
2. Rajeev Kumar Tripathy, S/o Dasharath Narayan Tripathy, Village - Maura,
Post - Chandrakaithi, P.S. - Chenari, District - Rohtas - 821104.
3. Anil Kumar Shukal, S/o Kameshwar Shukal, Village Bhamdua, P.O. and P.S.
- Chenari, Bhardua, District - Rohtas - 821104.
4. The Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, through its Secretary having its office at
East Boring Canal Road, Patna.
5. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, East Boring Canal Road, Patna.
6. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, East Boring Canal Road, Patna.
7. The Head Master, Shri Bajrang Bali Sanskrit Uchch Vidyalay, Chenari,
Rohtas, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Anil Kumar (A.C. to G.P.20)
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sriram Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Amarjeet, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date: 23-02-2026
Re.: I.A. No. 02 of 2024
The present interlocutory application has been filed
Patna High Court L.P.A No.713 of 2024 dt.23-02-2026
2/6
seeking condonation of delay of 92 days in preferring the
present appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory
application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. I.A. No. 02/2024 stands allowed.
Re.: L.P.A.No. 713 of 2024
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
against the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in CWJC No. 14725 of 2023.
6. The writ petitioners (respondents herein) had
challenged Clause-6 of Resolution No. 970 dated 31.08.2013
issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar,
whereby teaching and non-teaching employees of Non-
Government recognized aided Sanskrit Schools/Madarsas
appointed on or after 15.02.2011 were placed on fixed salary.
The learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment rendered
in C.W.J.C. No. 985 of 2015 (Imran Alam & Ors. vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors.), allowed the writ petition and quashed the
relevant portion of the Resolution with consequential benefits.
7. The learned Writ Court, after hearing the parties,
passed the following orders:
“2. Both the counsels agree with this fact that the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.713 of 2024 dt.23-02-2026
3/6
issue involved in the present writ petition stands
finally adjudicated by the Division Bench of this
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15299 of 2015 and
connected petitions wherein the Division Bench has
relied upon its earlier judgment passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 985 of 2015 decided on 27.03.2019 whereby
the Memo, dated August, 2013, filed by the
respondents was quashed. It would be apposite to
quote the order passed by the Division Bench on
27.03.2019 in C.W.J.C. No. 15299 of 2015:
“These five writ petitions related to the claim
of salary by such teacher who are appointed
in Sanskrit Schools and who claim to have
been recognized prior to 15.02.2011 and are
amongst the 531 schools who were on the
grant-in-aid list prior to the aforesaid date.
These petitioners have also been deprived of
the benefits to which they were entitled by the
impugned resolution dated 31st August, 2013
which has already been quashed by us today
to the extent indicated in our judgment in
C.W.J.C. No. 985 of 2015 and, therefore, the
petitioners would also be entitled to the same
benefits on the same terms.”
3. In view of the above, the petitioner too would be
entitled to the regular pay scale as he was
appointed as Sanskrit School Teachers, which was
recognized prior to 15.02.2011.
4. Accordingly, Annexure-P/4 and the Resolution of
the Education Department dated 31.08.2013
(Annexure-P/3) is hereby quashed.
5. This writ petition, is accordingly, allowed with
all consequential benefits.”
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that against the judgment rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 985
of 2015, the State had preferred Civil Review No. 295 of 2019,
which was dismissed for non-prosecution, and thereafter a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.713 of 2024 dt.23-02-2026
4/6
restoration application being M.J.C. No. 2022 of 2023 has been
filed and is pending consideration. It is submitted that in view of
the pendency of the restoration application, the learned Single
Judge ought to have kept the writ petition in abeyance.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the issue stood concluded by binding
Division Bench judgments and the learned Single Judge merely
followed the settled position of law. It is submitted that the
impugned order does not warrant interference.
10. The limited issue that arises for consideration in
the present appeal is whether the order dated 08.04.2024 passed
by the learned Single Judge, having been rendered upon
agreement of learned counsel that the issue stood concluded by
earlier Division Bench judgments, and thus being in the nature
of a consent order, suffers from any illegality or infirmity
warranting interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction.
11. We have carefully considered the impugned order
dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. A plain
reading of the impugned order makes it evident that the learned
Single Judge specifically recorded that both learned counsel
appearing for the parties agreed that the issue involved in the
writ petition stood finally adjudicated by earlier Division Bench
Patna High Court L.P.A No.713 of 2024 dt.23-02-2026
5/6
judgments of this Court. Upon such recorded agreement and
noticing that the matter was covered by binding precedents, the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and granted
consequential reliefs.
12. It is well settled that what is recorded in a
judgment as having been stated by counsel is conclusive and
binding on the parties. In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas
Shrinivas Nayak, reported in (1982) 2 SCC 463, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“4.... We are afraid that we cannot launch into an
enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It
is simply not done. Public policy bars us. Judicial
decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are
unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges
cannot be dragged into the arena. “Judgments
cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of
litigation.” [ Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaram
Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty, AIR 1926 PC 136 :
99 IC 742] We are bound to accept the statement of
the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what
transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement
of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at
the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence...”
13. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has
recorded the agreement of counsel that the issue stood covered
by earlier binding judgments. No material has been placed
before us to show that such recording is erroneous. In view of
the law laid down in Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (supra), the
correctness of the recorded submission cannot be reopened in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.713 of 2024 dt.23-02-2026
6/6
appellate proceedings.
14. Once the parties agreed before the learned Single
Judge that the controversy was concluded by binding precedent,
and the order was passed on that basis, the appellants cannot
now be permitted to re-agitate the same issue in an intra-court
appeal.
15. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 warranting
interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
16. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
dismissed.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…