IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1509 of 2019 ======================================================

Md. Waris Alam Md. Nazim Ansari Resident of Village-Pakaria, P.S. Hisuwa, District Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar and Ors The State Of Bihar and Ors Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary Primary Education, Department of Human Resources development Govt. of Bihar Patna

3. The Director Primary Education the Department of Human Resouces Development Govt. of Bihar Patna

4. The Member, District teacher Appellate Authority Nawada

5. The District Programe Officer, (Establishment) Nawada, District Nawada

6. The Block Development Officer, Nardiganj, Nawada, District Nawada

7. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Khuakarna, Block Nardiganj, P.S. Nardiganj, Dist. Nawada

8. The Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Ichuakarna Block Nardiganj, P.S. Nardiganj, Dist. Nawada

9. Benu Kumari Ramchandra Prasad R/o Village Orro, P.S. Nardiganj, Dist.-

Nawada.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Raj Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy (Sc13)

Mr. Jai Prabhat Kishore, AC to SC-13 For Respondent No.7 & 8: Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocate Mr. Kumar Lalit, Advocate For Respondent No.9 : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 05-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant writ application has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) For quashing the order dated 07.09.2018 issued by the Chairperson State Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No.80/2018 contained in Annexure-

12.

(ii) For commanding the Respondent No.7 and 8 to appoint the petitioner as Urdu teacher against the solitary post of Urdu Teacher in Gram Panchayat Ichuakarna Block Nardiganj, P.S. Nardiganj, District- Nawada.

(iii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled under law as well as on the facts of the case.

3. From Annexure-4, it appears that there was only one sanctioned post of Urdu Teacher, against which the petitioner was appointed. The District Appellate Authority, Nawada, vide order contained in Memo No. 161 dated 09.05.2012, had directed the Employment Unit to appoint the petitioner on the post of Urdu Teacher, and pursuant thereto, the petitioner was appointed. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to adjust Respondent No. 9, namely, Benu Kumari, the petitioner was displaced from the post against which he was appointed, and at the instance of Respondent No. 9, the District Appellate Authority recalled its earlier order vide Memo No. 94 dated 18.07.2013.

4. It is next submitted that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of recall, filed an appeal being Appeal Case No.80 of 2018, before the State Appellate Authority, which was finally heard on 07.09.2018. However, without considering the fact that the petitioner’s appointment was made against the post of Urdu Teacher and that respondent no. 9, even on transfer could not have been adjusted, as against the post of Urdu teacher, which post was being held by the petitioner, this material aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned State Appellate Authority. Treating respondent no. 9 as a teacher appointed against the Urdu subject, the appointment of the petitioner, made pursuant to the order passed by the District Appellate Authority, Nawada, as contained in Memo No. 161 dated 09.05.2012, was interfered with, and the said order was erroneously treated as an error committed and, consequently, the subsequent order of recall was upheld by the State Appellate Authority. While doing so, the State Appellate Authority erred in appreciating the fact that the petitioner, who was initially appointed pursuant to the order passed by the District Appella