IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.381 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4758 of 2025 ======================================================

Satyendra Prasad @ Satyendra Kumar Son of Deenanath Prasad, resident of Ganga Piper, Ward no. 10, Raghopur, P.S.- Raghopur, District - East Champaran- 845418.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Goverment of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director (Primary Education), Bihar, Patna.

3. The Deputy Director (Primary Education), Bihar, Patna.

4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

5. The District Magisrate, East Champaran.

6. The District Education Officer, East Champaran.

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

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Lal Mani Sharma, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13)

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 17-02-2026 This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 26.03.2025 passed in CWJC No. 4758 of 2025. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that when the matter was taken up on 26.03.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner, appellant herein, produced the order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 460 of 2007 and other analogous cases and prayed for disposal of the case in similar manner.

2. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has passed the following order:-

“7. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, this Court, in light of the observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 460 of 2007, can only expect from the State to expedite the process of promotion of members of L.S.S. against the available vacancies for them in Sub-ordinate Education Service (hereinafter referred to as “S.E.S.”) and complete the process as early as possible.

8. The executives have experience to run the government and this Court cannot interfere in any manner.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that no such submission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition to dispose off the writ petition in similar manner, like the order dated 30.07.2009 passed in LPA No. 460 of 2007 and other analogous cases.

4. Law is well settled that if a party is of the view that something has been wrongly recorded, it is open to him to approach the very same Court, bringing it to the notice about such aspect while the matter is still fresh in the mind of the Court and the said Court is empowered to correct the mistakes, if any.

5. After going through the impugned order, we are of the view that only a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge directing the State to expedite the process of promotion of members of L.S.S. against the available vacancies in Sub-ordinate Education Service and to complete the process as early as possible.

6. After perusing the order and hearing the parties, we are of the view that there is nothing perverse or palpable unreasonableness in the impugned order. Therefore, within the limited scope of appellate jurisdiction, we are not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. Accordingly, the present LPA stands dismissed. (Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

(Harish Kumar, J)

shivank/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.02.2026 Transmission Date NA