Patna High Court
Ram Dinesh SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the Single Judge correctly set aside the appellant’s appointment and reinstated the petitioner, as the Tribunal order was stayed and quashed and any appointment made in contravention of that stay was void, and the 2006 Rules barred the appellant’s claim.
Summary
The dispute concerned the appointment to the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in Muzaffarpur. The petitioner, Bhole Shankar Kumar, was appointed in 2005 and later absorbed as a Panchayat Teacher after the 2006 Rules abolished the original post. The appellant, Ram Dinesh Sahni, claimed the appointment was irregular and obtained a Tribunal order in 2011 granting him the post, but that order was stayed in 2011 and quashed in 2013. Despite the stay, the authorities appointed the appellant in 2012, removing the petitioner. The Single Judge reinstated the petitioner and set aside the appellant’s appointment, a decision the Division Bench upheld, holding that the Tribunal order could not be acted upon and that any appointment made in violation of a higher court’s stay is void.
Issues considered
- Whether the Single Judge erred in setting aside the appellant’s appointment and reinstating the petitioner.
- Whether a Tribunal order that was stayed and later quashed can serve as a basis for appointment.
- Whether appointments made during the subsistence of a stay order are void and illegal.
- Whether the statutory scheme under the 2006 Rules bars the appellant’s claim to appointment as Panchayat Teacher.
- Scope of appellate interference in an intra‑court appeal.
Subjects
- appointment
- Panchayat Shiksha Mitra
- Panchayat Teacher
- stay order
- tribunal order
- statutory interpretation
- intra-court appeal
- binding precedent
- illegal appointment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.888 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17244 of 2015
======================================================
Ram Dinesh Sahni Son of Deolal Sahni resident of Village- Madhuwan Kanti,
P.O.- Jamin Matiya, P.S.- Meenapur, District- Muzaffarpur .
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
4. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Programme Officer, Establishment, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Block Development Officer, Meenapur Block, District- Muzaffarpur.
7. The Block Education Officer, Meenapur Block, Muzaffarpur.
8. The Mukhiya, Panchayat Rajwara Bharti, Block- Meenapur, District-
Muzaffarpur.
9. Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat Rajwara Bharti, Block- Meenapur, District-
Muzaffarpur.
10. Bhole Shankar Kumar, Son of Sri Yugal Das Resident of Village- Pakhnaha
Jeetwar, P.S.- Meenapur, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
For the Respondent No.10 : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Shaswat Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
3 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra Court appeal has been preferred
against the order dated 02.08.2024 passed in CWJC No.17244
of 2015, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ
Patna High Court L.P.A No.888 of 2024(3) dt.06-04-2026
2/13
application.
3. The present case arises out of a dispute concerning
appointment to the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in Gram
Panchayat Raj Bara Bharati, Meenapur Block, District
Muzaffarpur. Pursuant to a selection process held in the year
2004–2005, the writ petitioner (Respondent no. 10 herein),
Bhole Shankar Kumar, was selected and appointed on
27.05.2005 and continued in service. Upon enforcement of the
Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and
Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 with effect from 01.07.2006,
the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra stood abolished and
existing incumbents were absorbed as Panchayat Teachers.
4. Subsequently, on a complaint made by the present
appellant, Ram Dinesh Sahni, alleging irregularities in the
selection process, the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur,
cancelled the entire selection vide order dated 26.12.2007. The
matter thereafter proceeded before the District Appellate
Authority in Appeal Case No. 149/2010, which allowed the
claim of the appellant vide order dated 15.07.2011. The said
order, however, was stayed by this Court on 16.12.2011 in
CWJC No. 22411 of 2011 and ultimately quashed on
04.09.2013. Notwithstanding the subsistence of the stay, the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.888 of 2024(3) dt.06-04-2026
3/13
authorities proceeded to implement the Tribunal’s order and
appointed the appellant on 30.06.2012, resulting in removal of
the writ petitioner.
5. Thereafter, by resolution dated 25.11.2013, the
Panchayat Employment Unit held the initial appointment of the
writ petitioner to be illegal. The learned Single Judge, by the
impugned order, set aside such action and directed reinstatement
of the writ petitioner.
6. Considering the facts of the case, the learned Single
Judge made the following observations in paragraphs 22, 23 &
25 to 32 of the impugned order, which are reproduced as under:
"22. The decision of the Panchayat Secretary
and the Employment Unit overriding the order
of this Court is unknown to the rule of law and
is contumacious.
23. Furthermore, after coming into force of the
2006 Rules with effect from 01.07.2006, the
appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra cannot
be interfered into and cancelled retrospectively
in view of the decision of the Division Bench, in
the case of Renu Kumari Pandey (supra) and
the Full Bench decision of this Court, in the
case of Kalpana Rani (supra).
25. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was
appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra prior to
coming into force of the 2006 Rules on
01.07.2006 and after conversion he was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.888 of 2024(3) dt.06-04-2026
4/13
working as Panchayat Teacher. The complaint
of respondent no. 10 that there was irregularity
at the time of appointment of Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra and he was left out cannot be agitated by
him after conversion of the post of Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra into Panchayat Teacher with
effect from 01.07.2006.
26. The Full Bench of this Court, in Kalpana
Rani (supra) has held as follows:-
“118. Having thus given my anxious
consideration, I am of the view that after
1.7.2006, no person, who was earlier an Patna
High Court LPA No.1569 of 2010 dt. 15-05-
2014 aspirant for the post of Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra, can be appointed only because his or her
name figured in the panel of Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra. The post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra has
been abolished with effect from 1.7.2006 and
after abolition of the post, no one can be
appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher on
the basis of his mere empanelment of Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra. The view taken in the judgment
of the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Renu
Kumari Pandey (supra) is a good law. I will
have no hesitation in holding that the earlier
Division Bench judgment in the case of Kishori
Prasad (supra), for the reasons indicated above,
has not correctly decided the law and is,
accordingly, overruled.”
27. I have given my anxious consideration upon
the facts and law discussed herein above and
come to the finding that removal of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.888 of 2024(3) dt.06-04-2026
5/13
petitioner by the Panchayat Secretary and the
Employment Unit by misinterpreting the order
of this Court, dated 04.09.2013, passed in
CWJC No. 22411 of 2011 is not sustainable and
is liable to be set aside. The Panchayat
Secretary by distorting and concealing the fact
regarding stay of the operation of the order
passed by the Tribunal, implemented the order
of the Tribunal on 30.06.2012 and appointed the
respondent no. 10 in order to favour him.
28. The respondent no. 10 was not appointed as
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra before 01.07.2006. As
such, he has no right to claim employment or
deemed employment as Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra or has a right to be absorbed as
Panchayat Teacher by operation of Rule 20 (iii)
of the 2006 Rules.
29. Considering the same, I come to the
conclusion that the removal of the petitioner as
Panchayat Teacher and appointment of
respondent no. 10 in the garb of implementation
of the order passed by the Tribunal is
completely illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and
unsustainable in law.
30. Accordingly, the order/resolution of the
Selection Committee, dated 25.11.2013 and the
Memo No. 210, dated 30.11.2013, issued under
the signature of the Panchayat Secretary are set
aside. The appointment of the respondent no. 10
as Panchayat Teacher is also set aside.
31. The respondent authorities are directed to
reinstate the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.888 of 2024(3) dt.06-04-2026
6/13
the post vacated by respondent no. 10 within a
period of two months from today without any
back wages.
32. It is made clear that if the petitioner does
not complete the teachers’ training, arranged by
the respondents or otherwise, within the
stipulated time fixed by the concerned
respondents, the authorities shall be at liberty to
take appropriate action against the petitioner as
per law."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Single Judge failed to consider the order dated
15.07.2011 passed by the District Appellate Authority in Appeal
Case No. 149 of 2010, whereby the Tribunal, upon
consideration of the records, held the appointment of the writ
petitioner to be contrary to roster and merit and found the
appellant entitled to appointment. It is further submitted that the
appellant had raised objections regarding irregularities in the
selection process at the earliest point of time, and therefore, his
claim is bona fide. It is thus urged that the learned Single Judge
failed to properly consider the findings of the Tribunal and the
materials on record, rendering the impugned judgment
unsustainable.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the foundation of the appellant’s claim, namely the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.888 of 2024(3) dt.06-04-2026
7/13
Tribunal’s order dated 15.07.2011, stood stayed and
subsequently quashed, and therefore, no right could flow
therefrom. It is further submitted that the writ petitioner, having
been validly appointed prior to 01.07.2006, acquired statutory
protection under the 2006 Rules, and the appellant, never having
been appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, had no enforceable
right.
9. The limited issue which arises for consideration in
the present intra court appeal is that whether the learned Single
Judge committed any error, warranting interference in intra-
Court appellate jurisdiction, in setting aside the appointment of
the appellant and directing reinstatement of the writ petitioner.
10. Upon perusal of the materials available on record
and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it
is evident that the writ petitioner (Respondent no. 10) was
appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 27.05.2005 and was in
continuous service prior to the coming into force of the 2006
Rules. By operation of the 2006 Rules, his services were
absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. This foundational fact is
undisputed and has rightly been taken note of by the learned
Single Judge also.
11. The claim of the appellant is entirely founded
Patna High Court L.P.A No.888 of 2024(3) dt.06-04-2026
8/13
upon the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Tribunal in
Appeal Case No. 149/2010. However, it is an admitted position
that the said order was stayed by this Court on 16.12.2011 and
was subsequently quashed on 04.09.2013. Once the very basis
of the appellant’s claim stood nullified, any consequential action
taken in furtherance thereof cannot survive in the eye of law.
The learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated this aspect
and rightly discarded the claim of the appellant founded upon
such order.
12. More importantly, during the subsistence of the
stay order, the authorities proceeded to implement the Tribunal’s
order and appointed the appellant on 30.06.2012. Such action,
being in clear disregard of a subsisting judicial order, is ex facie
impermissible and void. The learned Single Judge has,
therefore, rightly held such action to be arbitrary and
unsustainable. At this juncture, it is pertinent to take note of the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in East India
Commercial Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, reported in AIR
1962 SC 1893, has held that orders of superior courts are
binding on all authorities and any action in violation thereof is
void and without jurisdiction. The relevant part of the said
judgement reads as follows:
“31…We, therefore, hold that the law declared by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.888 of 2024(3) dt.06-04-2026
9/13
highest court in the State is binding on authorities or
tribunals under its superintendence, and that they
cannot ignore it either in initiating a proceeding or
deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding.
If that be so, the notice issued by the authority
signifying the launching of proceedings contrary to
the law laid down by the High Court would be invalid
and the proceedings themselves would be without
jurisdiction.”
13. The learned Single Judge has also rightly relied
upon the binding precedents governing the field. The Division
Bench judgment in Renu Kumari Pandey vs. State of Bihar,
2011 (4) PLJR 297, had taken the view that after coming into
force of the 2006 Rules, claims based on earlier selection as
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra cannot be entertained. The relevant
paragraph of the said order is reproduced as under:
“17. ….In our opinion, even in a case where a
person has a legitimate grievance in respect of
his or her non-selection as Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra at the relevant time or non-continuance
as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, such person
cannot be deemed to have been appointed as
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra; nor can he/she be
deemed to have been employed as Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra as on 1st July, 2006; nor can
such person be deemed to have been absorbed
in service as Panchayat Shikshak under the
Rules.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.888 of 2024(3) dt.06-04-2026
10/13
14. The said legal position has subsequently been
considered and affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in
Kalpana Rani vs. State of Bihar, 2014 (2) PLJR 665, wherein it
has been conclusively held that after 01.07.2006, no person can
claim appointment on the basis of earlier empanelment as
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The relevant paragraphs of the said
order are reproduced as under:
“106. ….A question, therefore, would arise as
to whether in term of the repeal of the executive
instruction of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in
terms of Rule 20(i) of 2006 Rules, could any
dispute be adjudicated for appoitment on the
post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra? The answer
to this must be in negative, inasmuch as, if the
entire provision for Panchayat Shiksha Mitra
was itself repealed, there could not have been
any appointment on the abolished post of
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. It is this aspect of the
matter which has been dealt elaborately in the
earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of
Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey (supra) and I do not
find any error in the same.
XXXX
XXXX
118. ...Having thus given my anxious
consideration, I am of the view that after
1.7.2006, no person, who was earlier an
aspirant for the post of Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra, can be appointed only because his or
Patna High Court L.P.A No.888 of 2024(3) dt.06-04-2026
11/13
her name figured in the panel of Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra. The post of Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra has been abolished with effect from
1.7.2006 and after abolition of the post, no one
can be appointed on the post of Panchayat
Teacher on the basis of his mere empanelment
of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The view taken in
the judgment of the Division Bench in the case
of Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey (supra) is a good
law. I will have no hesitation in holding that the
earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of
Kishori Prasad (supra), for the reasons
indicated above, has not correctly decided the
law and is, accordingly, overruled.”
15. In the present case, the appellant admittedly was
never appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra prior to
01.07.2006. Consequently, he did not acquire any legal or
statutory right to seek appointment or absorption as Panchayat
Teacher under the statutory scheme.
16. The submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellant with regard to merit position, category and roster
cannot override the statutory provisions and the binding judicial
pronouncements governing the field. Furthermore, such claims
raised after the statutory transition had taken effect, cannot be
permitted to unsettle a position which had already attained
finality.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.888 of 2024(3) dt.06-04-2026
12/13
17. So far as the scope of interference in an intra-
Court appeal is concerned, it is well settled that the appellate
Court would interfere only when the judgment under appeal
suffers from patent illegality, perversity or error apparent on the
face of the record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Management
of Narendra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Workmen, reported in (2016) 3
SCC 340 , has held that appellate interference is warranted only
when findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The
relevant part of the said judgment reads as follows:
"5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen
the records had come to the conclusion that the
industry was not functioning after January 1995,
there is no justification in entering a different
finding without any further material before the
Division Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to
have noticed that the statement of MW 3 is itself
part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be
that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a
finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench
reaches a conclusion that the finding of the
Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the
same. Merely because another view or a better
view is possible, there should be no interference
with or disturbance of the order passed by the
Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer
approach on relief.”
18. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.888 of 2024(3) dt.06-04-2026
13/13
the present case, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge
has correctly appreciated both the factual matrix and the settled
legal position. The findings recorded are based on materials on
record and are in consonance with the statutory scheme as well
as binding precedents, and the same deserve to be upheld.
19. This Court, upon independent consideration, finds
no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The findings are neither
perverse nor contrary to law; rather, they are in consonance with
the statutory framework and binding precedents. The view taken
by the learned Single Judge that the removal of the writ
petitioner and appointment of the appellant, purportedly in
implementation of a non-existent and stayed Tribunal order, was
illegal and unsustainable, is fully justified and calls for no
interference.
20. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
21. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Shailendra Singh, J.)
Gaurav Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.