Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANGAM KUMAR SAHOO, CJ, HARISH KUMAR, J.
Arjun Kumar S/o Late Hiralal Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 315 of 2025, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 436 of 2024
Decided On : 24-04-2026
Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Disputes Redressal and Appeal) Rules, 2020 – Rule 4(iii) – Non-appointment on post of Panchayat Teacher/Prakhand Teacher – State Appellate Authority carries out its function more effectively in resolving the disputes in terms with the relevant provisions of the Rules, 2020 – Legislature has provided two separate Chairman in State Appellate Authority; one of which shall be a retired Justice of High Court, whereas another Chairman shall be retired officer of Indian Administrative Service, not below Principal Secretary – State Government, may authorise any Chairman to discharge duty of another Chairman – Order passed by State Appellate Authority in absence of Chairman (Judicial) in terms with Rule 4(iii) does not suffer from vice of Coram non judice. (Para 41.8, 41.10 and 41.13)
Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 – Rule 8 – Non-appointment on post of Panchayat Teacher/Prakhand Teacher – There is no such rule extending any power to any of Employment Unit or State to extend life of a merit list/panel – No relief can be granted to candidate if he approaches Court after expiry of select list – If selection process is over, select list has expired and appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by Court at a belated stage – Panel or a merit list cannot be treated as if it exists in perpetuity, which will facilitate making appointments as and when required – Merely because name of a candidate finds place in merit list, it would not give candidate an indefeasible right to get an appointment as well – Life of 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 year 2012 and onwards – Petitioners had not passed Teachers Eligibility Test and thereby not possessing eligibility for appointment to post of Panchayat Teacher/Prakhand Teacher as required under Rules, 2012. (Paras 44.2, 44.3, 44.4, 44.6, 44.7 and 45.2)
Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of party, rather idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislative fixed period of time – Vested right of a party should not be disrupted at instance of person, who is guilty of culpable negligence – In order to determine as to whether there was sufficient cause for non-appearance, it is required to be examined whether mistake was bonafide or was merely a device to cover an anterior purpose – It would be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on same footing in all respects in such matters – When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred; for other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done, because of non-deliberate delay – Court owes duty to first ascertain bona fides of explanation offered by party seeking condonation – Sufficient cause has been assigned by appellants in approaching State Appellate Authority – Appellate Authority is empowered under Rules, 2020 having jurisdiction to condone delay in filing appeal. (Paras 42.1, 42.2, 42.3, 42.4 and 42.5)
Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 14 – Non-appointment on post of Panchayat Teacher/Prakhand Teacher – Any order made on a writ petition affecting interest of a party who has not been arrayed as a respondent could be invalidated on the ground of breach of natural justice or order in no manner would be applicable to them – However, suppression of even single material fact may be fatal before Writ Court – Party/authority, whose order is sought to be quashed and authority under whose control they function are necessary party if a case is instituted against Members of Employment Unit, who are statutory functionaries regulated by authorities of Education Department as well as State – In absence of State or its instrumentalities and its higher authorities, who are ultimately concerned with subject matter or would have been affected by outcome of case, must be made party to lis in all fairness of things – Conferring rights or benefits on 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 cause of "the unfair". (Paras 43.1, 43.2 and 43.3)
Service Law – Termination – Retrospective termination and directions for recovery – There is no obligation on Court to protect illegal appointment – Extraordinary power of court should be used only in an appropriate case to advance cause of justice and not to defeat rights of others or create arbitrariness – Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible – Employment under State constitutes a national wealth – Opening of a Service Book and enhancement of salary cannot confer camouflage of legality on such illegal appointment – Once a person appointed in rank, illegally, cannot complain that termination procedure was arbitrary – Those who came in through back door must go out through same door – However, retrospective termination and direction for recovery of salary, directed by State Appellate Authority and upheld by Single Judge is not legally sustainable in law as well as on facts – Termination of writ petitioners shall take effect from date of order passed by State Appellate Authority in their respective cases and salary paid shall not be recovered – LPA dismissed. (Paras 46.1, 46.2, 46.6, 56, 57 and 58)
JUDGMENT :
HARISH KUMAR, J.
1. 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 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 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.
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/orde
The appointment cancellation of petitioners was upheld due to jurisdictional limitations and the conclusion of recruitment processes, emphasizing the need for compliance with statutory guidelines.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality of appointments made by the Panchayat Employment Committee, the entitlement of the writ petitioner to be offered appointment and con....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality committed by the Selection Committee in denying appointment to the writ petitioner and accommodating the appellant, as well as the p....
The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to review its final orders, affirming that review power must be explicitly granted by statute. Any review attempt was invalid ....
Appointments made with proper oversight and approval cannot be deemed illegal solely due to procedural irregularities, especially when no disciplinary actions have been taken against the appointees.
The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority cannot review its final decisions unless expressly authorized by statute.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
