Administrative discretion must comply with procedural fairness and jurisdictional limits.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

2 23-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-State.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for the grant of following reliefs:-

a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari setting aside the original order dated 08.10.2025 108.10.2025 passed in Appeal No. 292 of 2023 by learned Chairperson (A) Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha wherein and whereby the learned Authority has directed the Employment Unit to cancel employment of petitioner within a fort night because she happened to be the daughter-in-law of the then Mukhiya and also directed that any payment made to petitioner shall be recovered by the District Education Officer according to the process of law. b) Further forissuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari setting aside the review order dated 10.10.2025 passed in Application No. 313 of 2025 by learned Chairperson (A) Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha wherein and whereby the learned Authority has rejected the review application preferred by the petitioner in a mechanical manner.

c) Further for a declaration that the order passed by the learned Chairperson (A) Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha in Appeal No. 292 of 2023 is without jurisdiction. d) Further for staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 passed in Appeal No. 292 of 2023 till the disposal of the present writ application.

e) Also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue to discharge her duty as a Panchahyat Teacher. f) For grant of any other relief or relief to which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.

3. It is a case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed and joined as Panchayat Teacher on 20.02.2007. Subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, the complaint was filed by Respondent No. 11, namely Soni Kumari, and the District Magistrate, Gopalganj directed the BEO and BDO Panchdeori to conduct an inquiry into the matter relating to the selection process. It is further stated that the BEO, Panchdeori conducted the inquiry and submitted his report to the BDO, Panchdeori and found that the complaint of the Respondent No.

11, Soni Kumari was without any merit. In 2011, the petitioner completed certificate in Primary Teaching from IGNOU. In 2012, the petitioner successfully completed certificate in Primary Curriculum and Instruction Programme from IGNOU. Thereafter in 2015, the petitioner successfully completed six months DPE Programme from IGNOU. He further submits that after nearly 10 years of the appointment of the petitioner, the Respondent No. 11, Soni Kumari filed an appeal before the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Gopalganj which was registered as Appeal Case No. 42 of 2017. After hearing all the parties concerned, final order was passed in the said appeal on 02.08.2023 which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-P/16. The operative portion of this order passed by the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Gopalganj is quoted hereinbelow for the needful:-

From perusal of memorandum of appeal and re-joinder and material available on the record, three fold questions have to be considered: (1) Whether the appellant really got knowledge in the year of 2017? Patrank:- 1471 dated 19.06.2017 samaharnalay, Gopalganj copy that was also sent to the Sony Sriwastaw, it was also enquired by the BDO, Panchdeori who also dismissed the claim.

Later on again claim was made by Sony Sriwastaw and Pramod Kumar to the DM, Gopalganj vide letter No. 775/C dated 14.03.2008 again enquired and claim was also dismissed". Which is indicative of the fact that appellant was in full knowledge of t