Rameshwar Kumar @ Ramishwar Kumar vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7889 of 2025
======================================================
1. Rameshwar Kumar @ Ramishwar Kumar Son of Shri Bhola Rai, Resident
of Village- Laxmipur, 162, Ward No. 02 Post Office- Bathnaha, District-
Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School Bishunpur Kamaldah,
Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
2. Masoor Ansari S/o Shri Gafoor Ansari, Village- Suhai, P.O. Manik Chowk
Ward No. 13, P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt.
Middle School Orlahiya, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
3. Shyam Kumar S/o Ramsnehi Ray, Resident of Village- Mishraouliya, Ward
No. 5, R. Gosaipur, Post Office- Paktola, P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi,
Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School Bishunpur Kamaldah, Anchal-
Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
4. Manish Kumar S/o Shri Ram Babu Mahto, Village and P.O.- Rasalpur, P.S.-
Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Shahpur Shitalpatti, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
5. Nutan Kumari D/o Ratneshwar Prasad Singh, Village- Pratap Nagar, P.S.-
Mehsaul, District- Sitamarhi, Govt. Middle School Gattipur, Anchal-
Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
6. Jai Prakash Pandey S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, Village- Masahi, P.O.-
Mohni Mandal, P.S.- Suppi, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt.
Middle School Maudah, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
7. Mukesh Baitha S/o Raj Kishore Baitha, Village- Pamra, P.O.- Raghopur
Bakhri, P.S. and District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Shahpur Shitalpatti, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
8. Birendra Kumar S/o Brahmdeo Rai, Village and P.O.- Singhwahini, District-
Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School Turkauliya, Anchal-
Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
9. Ravi Shankar Kumar S/o Shri Arun Kumar Chaudhary, Village and P.O.-
Singhwahini, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Basbatti, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
10. Praneeta Kumari D/o Shri Narendra Chaudhary, Village and P.O.- Tara
Bariyarpur, P.O.- Khodabandpur, District- Begusarai, Prakhand Teacher
Govt. Middle School Yogiwana Bazar, Anchal- Bathnaha, District-
Sitamarhi.
11. Mili Kumari D/o Shivchandara Mahto, Village and P.O.- Ghanshyampur,
P.S.- Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Kishanpur, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
12. Dhirendra Kumar S/o Rambabu Singh, Village and P.O.- Bangav, P.S.-
Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Kishanpur, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
13. Dipti Kumari D/o Shri Randhir Prasad Singh, Village Kharshan, P.S.- Gia,
District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School Pokharbhinda,
Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
14. Rupa Kumari D/o Keshri Nandan Prasad, Village- Nandan Niwas, P.O.-
Motihari, District- East Champaran, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
2/54
Singhrahiya, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
15. Sunit Kumari D/o Jageshwar Prasad, Village- Dumra, Ward No. 6, Jail Road,
P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Singhrahiya, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
16. Shambhu Kumar S/o Sri Rambabu Prasad, Village and P.O.- Rasalpur, P.S.-
Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Sonbarsa, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
17. Santosh Kumar S/o Sri Kapildeo Rai, Village and P.O.- Paktola, P.S.-
Dumra, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Gattipur, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
18. Prakash Kumar Singh S/o Shri Randhir Prasad Singh, Village and P.O.-
Kharshan, P.S.- Riga, District- Sitamarhi, Govt. Middle School Orlahiya,
Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
19. Sudhir Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Ved Narayan Gupta, Village and P.O.-
Raghopur Bakhri, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle
School Turkauliya, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
20. Shiv Shankar Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Village- Majkothwa, P.S. and
P.O.- Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle
School Naudah, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
21. Nitu Devi D/o Shri Sikandara Baitha, Village- Pamra, P.O.- Raghopur
Bakhri, P.S. and District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Bishanpur Kamaldah, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
22. Subhash Kumar S/o Chandeshwar Rai, Village- Sundarpur, P.O.- Bagraha,
P.S- Sursand, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Dihati, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
23. Pushpanjli Kumari D/o Rajmahal Singh, Village- Doghara, P.O.- Sahbajpur,
P.S- Riga, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Pokharvinda, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
24. Pallavi Kumari D/o Anand Kumar Jha, Village- Belisarai, P.O.- Motihari
Sadar, P.S. and District- Motihari, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Yogiwanbazar, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
25. Aditya Saurabh S/o Shri Bhagya Narayan Chaudhary, Village- Pratap Nagar,
P.S. and District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School
Basbatti, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
26. Subodh Kumar S/o Sukhdeo Sah, Village and P.O- Godaulsharif, P.S.-
Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi, Prakhand Teacher Govt. Middle School Shahpur
Shittalpatti, Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
27. Rachna Kumari D/o Naresh Prasad Verma, Village- Sahbajpur, P.S.- Bochha,
District- Muzaffarpur, Prakhand Teacher, Govt. Middle School Sonbarsa,
Anchal- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary-cum- the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
3/54
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.
5. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi.
6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Sitamarhi.
7. The Secretary-cum-Block Development Officer, Block Employment Unit,
Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
8. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
9. The Block Education Officer, Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Adv
Mr.Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Alok, Standing Counsel (07)
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AC to SC 7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 15-05-2026
Heard the parties
2. The present writ application has been filed
essentially seeking the following reliefs:
“(I) For issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the order dated 25.04.2025 passed
by the learned Chairman, the State Appellate
Authority, Bihar, Patna in Case No. Appeal
-T/159/2024 (The District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Sitamarhi VS. Shri Shambhu
Das and Others.) by which, the appeal filed by
the District (Establishment), District
Programme Officer Sitamarhi against the
order passed by the learned District Appellate
Authority, Sitamarhi on 20.06.2024 in the Case
No. 168/2010 and 79/2023, has been allowed
and the order of the learned District Teacher
Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi
has been set aside cancelling the selection of
the petitioners from the date of their

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
4/54
appointment and the Block Development
Officer, Bathnaha, Sitamarhi has been directed
to remove the petitioners from service and in
view of R. Vishwanath Pillai vs. State of
Kerala and Others reported in (2004) 16 AIC
278, no payment will be admissible to them by
virtue of their cancelled appointment.
(II) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of mandamus for
commanding and directing the respondent
authorities concerned, to allow the petitioners
to function as Prakhand Teachers in their
respective schools without any hindrance
along with payment of arrears of salary as
well as current salary.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners, being fully eligible and qualified candidates, had
applied for appointment on the post of Prakhand Teachers in
Block Teacher Employment Unit, Bathnaha, District-Sitamarhi
under the Bihar Elementary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2008. It
is submitted that under the statutory framework, a provision of
appeal was also available before the District Teacher Employment
Appellate Authority against arbitrary non-selection of eligible
candidates.
4. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the
press communiqué issued by the Human Resource Development
Department, Government of Bihar, published on 31.07.2010, the
date for counselling and distribution of appointment letters in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
5/54
second phase of teachers’ employment was fixed as 12.08.2010.
The said press communiqué has been brought on record as
Annexure-P1. It is further submitted that subsequently the
Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar issued Memo
No. 1475 dated 04.12.2010 fixing 28.12.2010 as the last date for
completion of the second phase appointment process and
specifically clarified that disputed cases pending before the
Appellate Authority could still be considered pursuant to orders
passed by such authority. The consequential departmental
communication has also been relied upon by the petitioners.
It is submitted that in Bathnaha Block, though
counselling commenced on 12.08.2010, serious irregularities
occurred due to disputes between the then Secretary of the Block
Teacher Employment Unit and the Prakhand Pramukh. Learned
counsel submits that despite the petitioners having participated in
the counselling and their documents having been verified,
appointment letters were not issued to them. It is submitted that
the counselling proceedings were disrupted and the original
counselling register was allegedly taken away by the Block
Education Officer. Thereafter, on the intervention of the Deputy
Development Commissioner, counselling of another 32

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
6/54
candidates, including the present petitioners, was conducted on
departmental registers and their documents were verified.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
being aggrieved by arbitrary denial of appointment despite
participation in counselling, the petitioners immediately
approached the authorities. Representations were submitted before
the Senior Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-D.D.C.,
Sitamarhi on 19.08.2010 and the matter was referred for enquiry
before the District Teacher Appellate Authority. Simultaneously,
the petitioners filed appeals before the learned District Teacher
Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi within the prescribed period,
which were registered as Case Nos. 167/2010 and 168/2010.
Copies of the complaints and newspaper publications highlighting
the irregularities have been annexed as Annexure-P2 series.
It is further submitted that the Education Department
itself, by Memo No. 207 dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure-P3), lifted
the earlier embargo and directed consideration of cases of those
candidates who had applied in accordance with law but were
denied appointment due to the prevailing dispute and ban. Learned
counsel submits that even the Senior Deputy Collector, Sitamarhi
had acknowledged the irregularities in the Bathnaha Block teacher
appointment process and communicated the same to the District

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
7/54
Teacher Appellate Authority vide Letter No. 1407 dated
29.11.2010, brought on record as Annexure-P4.
6. Learned counsel submits that during pendency of
the appellate proceedings, the learned District Teacher Appellate
Authority passed an interim order dated 23.12.2010 (Annexure-
P5) directing the authorities to permit the concerned candidates to
participate in counselling on the date fixed by the Government and
further directed production of all records relating to the selection
process. It is further submitted that even the then Block Education
Officer-cum-Secretary, Block Employment Committee requested
adjournment before the Appellate Authority in the concerned cases
vide Letter No. 395 dated 06.12.2010, annexed as Annexure-P6.
7. Learned counsel submits that after detailed
consideration of the entire records and circumstances, the learned
District Teacher Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi passed a final
order dated 28.02.2011( Annexure-P7) in Case Nos. 104, 167, 168
and 198 of 2010, holding the petitioners to be genuine candidates
who had duly participated in counselling on 12.08.2010 and
directing issuance of appointment letters to 29 candidates.
However, despite the categorical direction of the Appellate
Authority, the order remained unimplemented, primarily because

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
8/54
the post of Presiding Officer of the District Teacher Appellate
Authority remained vacant for a considerable period.
It is further submitted that after the Appellate
Authority became functional again, some of the petitioners moved
applications for revival/reconsideration of the earlier proceedings
(Annexure-P8), which came to be registered as Case No. 79/2023.
Learned counsel submits that notices were thereafter issued to the
respondents and reports were called for by the Appellate Authority
vide Annexure-P9 and Annexure-P11.
8. Learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the
report submitted by the Block Development Officer-cum-
Secretary, Block Employment Committee, Bathnaha vide Letter
No. 54(Ni.) dated 15.06.2024, annexed as Annexure-P12. It is
submitted that in the said report, the authorities themselves
admitted that counselling of the petitioners and other candidates
had in fact taken place, that there had been disturbances during
counselling, and that out of the 32 candidates similarly situated,
two candidates, namely Usha Bhagat and Bindu Kumari, had
already been granted appointment pursuant to the appellate orders.
According to learned counsel, the said report conclusively
establishes that the petitioners were genuine candidates who had

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
9/54
participated in the counselling process and were illegally deprived
of appointment.
It is further submitted that after considering all
materials on record, the learned District Teacher Appellate
Authority, Sitamarhi finally allowed Case No. 168/2010 and Case
No. 79/2023 vide order dated 20.06.2024 directing issuance of
appointment letters to the remaining candidates, including the
petitioners. The said order has been annexed as Annexure-P13 and
its consequential communications as Annexure-P14.
9. Learned counsel submits that in compliance of the
aforesaid order, the Block Teacher Employment Committee
convened meetings, verified records and documents of the
petitioners, sought posting options from them, and thereafter
issued appointment letters in favour of the petitioners between
29.06.2024 and 05.07.2024. The relevant communications and
proceedings have been annexed as Annexure-P16, Annexure-P17,
Annexure-P18, Annexure-P19 and Annexure-P20 series. It is
submitted that after issuance of appointment letters, the petitioners
joined their respective schools and their joining was duly verified
and authenticated by the competent authorities. The
communications regarding verification and acceptance of joining
have been annexed as Annexure-P21 series.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
10/54
10. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have
thereafter continuously discharged their duties as Prakhand
Teachers and some of them were even deputed for official training
programmes conducted by DIET, Kumarbagh, West Champaran
pursuant to directions issued by the District Education Officer,
Sitamarhi. The certificates and departmental memos relating
thereto have been annexed as Annexure-P/22 series and Annexure-
P/23 series respectively. According to learned counsel, the same
clearly demonstrates that the petitioners were treated by the
authorities themselves as duly appointed teachers and permitted to
continue in service.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the insistence of the respondent authorities upon obtaining
prior approval from the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi
before implementation of the orders passed by the District Teacher
Appellate Authority is wholly misconceived, illegal and contrary
to settled departmental instructions. It is submitted that Memo No.
2718 dated 27.10.2023 issued by the District Education Officer,
Sitamarhi, whereby such prior approval was sought to be
mandated, has itself been set aside by the learned District Teachers
Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi in Case No. 34/2023 and 73/2023
(Surendra Ram vs. District Education Officer, Sitamarhi).

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
11/54
12. Learned counsel submits that despite the aforesaid
order setting aside Memo No. 2718 dated 27.10.2023, the District
Education Officer and District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Sitamarhi have continued to rely upon the said
non-existent communication only with a view to obstruct
implementation of the lawful orders passed in favour of the
petitioners. It is submitted that such conduct is not only arbitrary
but also contemptuous in nature, particularly when the authorities
were already aware of Memo No. 998 dated 03.10.2017 issued by
the Director, Primary Education and consequential Memo No.
2635 dated 31.10.2017, whereby implementation of appellate
orders had been duly recognised. Learned counsel further submits
that even Letter No. 606 dated 17.05.2016 issued by the Director,
Primary Education, relied upon by the respondents, already stood
recalled as evident from Memo No. 998 dated 03.10.2017. The
said communications have been brought on record as Annexure-
P26 and Annexure-P15 series.
It is further submitted that the District Programme
Officer (Establishment), Sitamarhi, with mala fide intention and
solely to harass the petitioners, preferred Appeal No. T/159/2024
before the learned State Appellate Authority challenging the order
dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned District Teacher Appellate

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
12/54
Authority, Sitamarhi. Learned counsel submits that the appeal was
filed by suppressing material facts, particularly the fact that the
petitioners had already been issued appointment letters, had joined
their respective schools and had been continuously discharging
their duties. It is submitted that the communications relating to
issuance of appointment letters and joining had already been
forwarded to the office of the District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Sitamarhi, yet the said facts were deliberately
withheld from the learned State Appellate Authority.
13. Learned counsel further submits that after grant of
interim stay by the learned State Appellate Authority on
20.02.2025, the District Programme Officer (Establishment),
Sitamarhi exceeded his jurisdiction and restrained the petitioners
from marking attendance and discharging duties by issuing
directions to the concerned Headmasters. It is submitted that such
action was taken even though the interim order merely stayed
operation of the appellate order and did not direct discontinuance
of service of the petitioners. Memo No. 690 dated 08.03.2025
issued by the District Programme Officer (Establishment),
Sitamarhi has been annexed as Annexure-P/29.
14. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners
appeared before the learned State Appellate Authority and filed

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
13/54
detailed replies along with supporting documents demonstrating
that they were genuine and duly selected candidates appointed
pursuant to lawful orders of the District Teacher Appellate
Authority. However, their submissions and documents were not
properly considered.
In support of the petitioners’ case, learned counsel has
relied upon several judgments and precedents relating to
appointments of Panchayat/Prakhand Teachers under the Bihar
Elementary Teachers Employment Rules, 2008. Reliance has been
placed upon the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 277 of 2012
(Ashok Prasad Yadav and Others vs. State of Bihar and
Others), decided on 06.01.2022, wherein this Court held that:
“From the impugned order of the
Appellate Authority it is clear that on account
of earlier Block Education Extension Officer
being arrested on the charge of corruption and
later on, on being released from custody, his
non-cooperation in handing over the relevant
papers of the pending selection process to the
successor Block Education Extension Officer,
process of selection could not be completed.
The entire paper was also not produced before
the Appellate Authority. Hence, in paragraph
16 of the order, the Appellate Authority has
directed the District Education Officer,
Muzaffarpur to get all the papers collected
and complete the selection process for
appointment of Teachers in the Block which
remained pending due to unforeseeable
circumstances. However, the Appellate

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
14/54
Authority has not accepted the plea of the
petitioners that an order should be issued for
fresh appointment
This Court considers that the
approach of the Appellate authority has been
correct as unless and until selection process is
completed and the Employment Agency finds
the petitioners fit for appointment on the basis
of the merit list after completing the process of
selection, the Appellate Authority could not
issue orders for their appointment. But that
does not mean that, if after completing the
selection process, petitioners are found
eligible for appointment, they cannot be
considered for the same on account of the fact
that their claim at this stage has been rejected
by the Appellate Authority. The last date of
completion of process of selection was
28.12.2010. However, it could not be
completed because of the circumstances
beyond the control of the candidates and other
authorities. Hence the Employment Agency in
the process of compliance of the order of the
Appellate Authority will be at liberty to seek
specific permission from the Department for
completing the process and making
appointment from the finalized merit list for
filling up posts.
The writ application is disposed of
with the aforesaid observations and
directions.”
15. Learned counsel has further placed strong reliance
upon the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No.
19754 of 2021 (Upendra Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar
and Others) , decided on 19.09.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Court

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
15/54
set aside an order of the State Appellate Authority cancelling
appointments of similarly situated teachers and upheld the order
of the District Teacher Appellate Authority. It is submitted that this
Court specifically held that once appointments had already been
made and candidates had joined service, such appointments could
not be termed illegal or fraudulent merely on presumptions
regarding carried forward vacancies or expired panels. The said
judgment has been annexed as Annexure-P/28.
16. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners’ case
stands on a much stronger footing inasmuch as the petitioners had
approached the District Teacher Appellate Authority immediately
in the year 2010 itself against irregularities committed in the
counselling process and had continuously pursued their remedies
before the competent forums. It is submitted that the petitioners
cannot be penalized for the lapses, disputes and administrative
failures committed by the authorities themselves.
It is further submitted that the learned State Appellate
Authority failed to appreciate that the vacancies pertaining to a
particular selection process cannot be merged or carried forward
to future selection cycles once litigation concerning such
vacancies is pending before a court or appellate forum. Learned
counsel submits that this legal position clearly emerges from

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
16/54
Memo No. 1475 dated 04.12.2010 issued by the Principal
Secretary, Education Department and Memo No. 998 dated
03.10.2017 issued by the Director, Primary Education. Therefore,
according to learned counsel, the finding recorded by the learned
State Appellate Authority that the appointments related to “carried
forward vacancies from an expired panel” is wholly unsustainable.
17. Learned counsel further submits that the appeal
preferred before the learned State Appellate Authority itself was
hopelessly barred by limitation and no plausible explanation for
condonation of delay was ever furnished by the appellants.
However, the learned State Appellate Authority failed to consider
the issue of delay and laches altogether. It is submitted that the
learned State Appellate Authority has been mechanically passing
stereotyped and format-based orders in all matters relating to
teacher appointments of the years 2008 and 2010 without
independently appreciating the peculiar facts of each case.
Learned counsel submits that in several such matters, this Hon’ble
High Court has already interfered with or stayed similar orders
passed by the State Appellate Authority.
18. Learned counsel submits that the judgments relied
upon by the learned State Appellate Authority, including R.
Vishwanath Pillai vs. State of Kerala , are wholly distinguishable

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
17/54
and inapplicable to the facts of the present case. It is argued that
the present case does not involve fraud, forged certificates or
illegal entry into service by the petitioners; rather, the petitioners
were deprived of appointment due to administrative irregularities
and disturbances during counselling despite having participated in
the process and having been found eligible.
It is further submitted that the learned State Appellate
Authority also failed to appreciate that the petitioners had
approached the appellate forum promptly in the year 2010 itself
and that even the District Teacher Appellate Authority had earlier
passed orders in their favour on 28.02.2011 directing issuance of
appointment letters. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners
cannot be made to suffer merely because the said order remained
unimplemented due to administrative lapses and prolonged
vacancy of the post of Presiding Officer of the Appellate
Authority.
19. Learned counsel has also questioned the manner in
which the impugned final order dated 25.04.2025 was delivered. It
is submitted that though the matter was fixed for final orders on
25.04.2025 and the petitioners had sought permission to file
supplementary affidavit, the order appears to have been
pronounced on 17.04.2025 itself without any explanation or prior

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
18/54
intimation. According to learned counsel, the same casts serious
doubt upon the procedure adopted by the learned State Appellate
Authority.
It is further submitted that the impugned order is
wholly without jurisdiction as the same has been passed by a
single Administrative Officer contrary to Rule 4(3) of the Rules,
2015, which contemplates a proper quorum for the State Appellate
Authority. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the
judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 17508 of
2021 (Pradip Kumar Yadav @ Pradeep Kumar Yadav and
Others vs. State of Bihar and Others) , decided on 17.04.2025,
wherein this Hon’ble Court remitted similar matters back to the
State Appellate Authority with directions regarding proper
constitution and adjudication by the competent quorum. The said
judgment has been annexed as Annexure-P/31.
20. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners
possess all requisite qualifications, have not committed any fraud
or misrepresentation and have continuously pursued their lawful
claim since the year 2010. It is submitted that after having served
as Prakhand Teachers pursuant to valid appointment letters and
after discharging duties to the satisfaction of the authorities, the
petitioners are being subjected to unnecessary harassment and

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
19/54
arbitrary deprivation of livelihood. It is, therefore, submitted that
the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned State
Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna in Appeal No. T/159/2024 is
liable to be quashed and the petitioners are entitled to continue as
Prakhand Teachers with all consequential benefits including
arrears and current salary.
I.A. No. 01 of 2025.
21. During pendency of the writ petition, the
petitioners filed the present interlocutory application seeking
amendment of the prayer portion of the writ petition so as to
challenge Memo No. 1325 dated 26.04.2025 issued by the District
Education Officer, Sitamarhi directing the Block Development
Officer, Bathnaha to cancel the selection/appointment of the
petitioners pursuant to the order passed by the learned State
Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna in Appeal No. T/159/2024. The
petitioners have contended that the impugned memo has been
issued mechanically and in haste, without application of mind and
without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule
15( छ ) of the Bihar Primary Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012. It
has specifically been pleaded that no departmental proceeding or
opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioners before
directing cancellation of their services, though the petitioners are

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
20/54
holding civil posts under the State and are entitled to protection of
principles of natural justice.
22. The petitioners have further relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamal Nayan
Mishra vs State of M.P. & Ors. to contend that termination from
service without enquiry and hearing is illegal in the eyes of law.
Reliance has also been placed upon the order passed by the
Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 17508 of 2021 and
analogous cases to submit that the order of the learned State
Appellate Authority itself is legally unsustainable as the same was
passed contrary to Rule 4(3) of the Rules, 2015. The petitioners
have also asserted that they are duly qualified and trained
teachers, have already discharged duties for considerable period,
acquired teaching experience and completed teachers’ training
course and, therefore, equity also lies in favour of their
continuation in service.
Accordingly, the petitioners have prayed for quashing
of Memo No. 1325 dated 26.04.2025 and for stay of its operation
during pendency of the writ petition, along with a direction upon
the respondent authorities to permit the petitioners to continue as
Prakhand Teachers with payment of salary and consequential
benefits.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
21/54
I.A. No. 02 of 2025.
23. Subsequently, during pendency of the writ petition
as well as I.A. No. 01 of 2025, the petitioners filed the present
interlocutory application seeking amendment of the writ petition
for challenging consequential Memo No. 458 dated 22.05.2025
issued under the signature of the Block Development Officer-cum-
Secretary, Block Teacher Employment Unit, Bathnaha, Sitamarhi.
By the aforesaid memo, issued in compliance of the order passed
by the learned State Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna in Appeal
No. T/159/2024 and Memo No. 1325 dated 26.04.2025 issued by
the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi, the services of the
petitioners were directed to be cancelled from the date of their
appointment and consequential directions were issued to the Block
Education Officer and concerned Headmasters for implementation
of the same, though the order was made subject to the outcome of
CWJC No. 7889 of 2025.
24. The petitioners have challenged the said
consequential action as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law
on the ground that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the
order passed by the learned District Teacher Employment
Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi and have continuously discharged
duties as Prakhand Teachers. It has further been pleaded that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
22/54
respondent authorities were fully aware that the petitioners had
already challenged the order of the learned State Appellate
Authority before the Hon’ble High Court, yet coercive action was
taken during pendency of the writ proceedings. The petitioners
have also reiterated that they possess requisite qualifications, have
completed in-service teachers’ training and Dakshata Examination
and have acquired substantial teaching experience and, therefore,
their continuation in service is necessary in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the petitioners have prayed for quashing
of Memo No. 458 dated 22.05.2025 and for stay of its operation
during pendency of the writ petition, with consequential direction
upon the respondent authorities to allow the petitioners to
continue as Prakhand Teachers along with payment of salary and
other consequential benefits.
25. Per Contra, Learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submits that the present writ petition
is misconceived, devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed, as the
learned State Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna has rightly and
legally set aside the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned
District Teacher Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi in Case No.
168/2010 and 79/2023.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
23/54
It has been submitted that the first phase of
appointment of Panchayat/Prakhand Teachers concluded in the
year 2007 and the remaining vacancies were carried forward to the
second phase of 2008, which itself concluded by December, 2010
with a specific departmental direction that no appointment would
be made after 31.12.2010 and all remaining vacancies would stand
carried forward to the subsequent phase. According to the
respondents, despite the expiry of the entire selection process and
exhaustion of vacancies, the learned District Appellate Authority
illegally directed appointment of the petitioners in the year 2024
against vacancies of the year 2008, contrary to departmental rules
and guidelines.
26. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioners had approached the District Appellate Authority after
an inordinate delay of nearly 12 to 15 years and the learned
District Appellate Authority failed to consider such delay, the
change in recruitment rules, completion of several subsequent
phases of appointment and exhaustion of earlier vacancies. It has
also been contended that if the earlier orders were not
implemented in the year 2011 itself, the petitioners ought to have
approached this Hon’ble Court earlier instead of remaining silent
for several years.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
24/54
It has been further submitted that the Block
Development Officer-cum-Secretary, Bathnaha illegally issued
appointment letters to the petitioners under the cover of the order
passed by the learned District Appellate Authority despite there
being no available vacancy or departmental approval. The
respondents have alleged that such appointments were made in
complete violation of departmental procedure and without proper
consultation with the Block Education Officer, who was an ex-
officio member of the Block Teacher Employment Unit.
27. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon
Letter No. 235 dated 07.08.2024 issued by the Block Education
Officer, Bathnaha stating that he was neither informed nor
included in the meeting relating to the appointments of the
petitioners and that the records pertaining to such appointments
were also not supplied to him. On this basis, the respondents have
contended that the entire appointment process itself was invalid
and contrary to the applicable rules.
28. Learned counsel for the respondents has also
submitted that the petitioners are wrongly relying upon Memo No.
998 dated 03.10.2017, as the said circular does not prohibit filing
of appeal before the State Appellate Authority against an
erroneous order passed by the District Appellate Authority. So far

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
25/54
as the challenge to the order passed by the learned State Appellate
Authority is concerned, it has been submitted that the said
authority, after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to all
parties, rightly set aside the order of the learned District Appellate
Authority and declared the appointments of the petitioners illegal
and invalid. It has further been contended that the consequential
actions taken through Memo No. 1325 dated 26.04.2025 issued by
the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi and Memo No. 458 dated
22.05.2025 issued by the Block Development Officer-cum-
Secretary, Block Teacher Employment Unit, Bathnaha were
merely in compliance of the order passed by the learned State
Appellate Authority. The respondents have also asserted that the
judgments and orders relied upon by the petitioners in paragraphs
53 to 55 of the writ petition are distinguishable on facts and are
not applicable to the present case.
29. Learned counsel further submits that the State
authorities acted bona fide and strictly in accordance with
departmental rules and guidelines and that the present writ petition
is based upon incorrect and misleading statements. It has
accordingly been prayed that the writ petition as well as the
interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners be dismissed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
26/54
30. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 7 submits
that the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners for
quashing Memo No. 458 dated 22.05.2025 is misconceived and
not fit to be allowed. It is submitted that the said memo was issued
only in compliance of the order dated 25.04.2025/17.04.2025
passed by the learned State Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna in
Appeal No. T-159/2024 as well as the consequential direction
issued by the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi vide Letter No.
1325 dated 26.04.2025.
31. Learned counsel while recapitulating the facts of
the case submits that the dispute relates to the second phase of
teacher employment of 2008, wherein counselling of candidates
was conducted on 12.08.2010. Due to disputes between the Block
Education Officer and the Prakhand Pramukh, appointment letters
could not be issued to certain candidates, following which several
cases including Case No. 168/2010 were instituted before the
District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi.
It is submitted that during the proceedings before the
District Appellate Authority, orders were passed permitting certain
candidates to participate in counselling held on 28.12.2010 and
some candidates were accordingly appointed on 31.12.2010,
whereas others including Shambhu Das were not issued

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
27/54
appointment letters. Thereafter, Contempt Case No. 79/2023 was
filed and ultimately, by order dated 20.06.2024 passed in Case No.
168/2010 and 79/2023, the learned District Appellate Authority
directed issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners.
32. Learned counsel submits that in compliance of the
aforesaid order, appointment letters were issued to the petitioners
by the Block Teacher Employment Unit, Bathnaha after
verification of educational and training certificates and the
petitioners joined their respective posts. It is further submitted that
the aforesaid order dated 20.06.2024 was challenged before the
learned State Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna in Appeal No. T-
159/2024 filed by the District Programme Officer (Establishment),
Sitamarhi and the learned State Appellate Authority, by order
dated 25.04.2025/17.04.2025, set aside the order of the District
Appellate Authority and cancelled the appointments of the private
respondents including the present petitioners from the date of
appointment itself.
33. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the
District Education Officer, Sitamarhi communicated the aforesaid
order to the Block Development Officer, Bathnaha for
compliance. Pursuant thereto, notices were issued to the
petitioners asking them to submit their explanation and after

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
28/54
consideration of their replies and the decision taken in the meeting
of the Block Teacher Employment Unit held on 21.05.2025,
Memo No. 458 dated 22.05.2025 was issued cancelling the
appointments of the petitioners.
It is lastly submitted that the action taken by the
authorities was in compliance of the appellate order and after
providing opportunity to the petitioners to submit their
explanation. Reliance has also been placed upon Letter No. 465
dated 09.07.2012 issued by the Principal Secretary, Education
Department to contend that previous vacancies, except disputed
vacancies, are to be merged with subsequent vacancies, and
therefore the petitioners cannot claim appointment against old
vacancies of the 2008 selection process. Accordingly, it is prayed
that the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners be
rejected.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the order dated 25.04.2025/17.04.2025
passed by the learned State Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna in
Appeal No. T-159/2024, whereby the order dated 20.06.2024
passed by the learned District Teachers Appellate Authority,
Sitamarhi has been set aside and the appointments of the
petitioners have been cancelled, is sustainable in the eyes of law,

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
29/54
particularly in view of the departmental circulars, the long
pendency of the dispute since the 2008 selection process, the
findings recorded by the District Appellate Authority, and the
judgments relied upon by the petitioners with regard to
continuation of appointments arising out of disputed vacancies?
2. Whether the consequential actions taken by the
respondent authorities, including Memo No. 1325 dated
26.04.2025 issued by the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi and
Memo No. 458 dated 22.05.2025 issued by the Block
Development Officer-cum-Secretary, Block Teacher Employment
Unit, Bathnaha, cancelling the services of the petitioners, are
legally valid and in conformity with the principles of natural
justice and the procedure prescribed under the relevant service
rules, particularly when the petitioners had already joined and
discharged duties pursuant to the order passed by the learned
District Teachers Appellate Authority?
3. Whether the petitioners, who claim to have
participated in the counselling process of the 2008 selection,
pursued their grievances before the competent appellate
authorities since the year 2010, and were ultimately appointed
pursuant to judicial/quasi-judicial orders, can be denied
continuation in service and salary on the ground that the vacancies

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
30/54
had allegedly lapsed or merged into subsequent phases of
appointment, despite there being pending litigation and
departmental instructions regarding disputed vacancies?
FINDINGS:
Issue 1. Whether the order dated
25.04.2025/17.04.2025 passed by the learned State Appellate
Authority, Bihar, Patna in Appeal No. T-159/2024, whereby the
order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned District Teachers
Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi has been set aside and the
appointments of the petitioners have been cancelled, is
sustainable in the eyes of law, particularly in view of the
departmental circulars, the long pendency of the dispute since
the 2008 selection process, the findings recorded by the
District Appellate Authority, and the judgments relied upon by
the petitioners with regard to continuation of appointments
arising out of disputed vacancies?
Finding on Issue 1: The aforesaid issue goes to the
very root of the present writ application and this Court is required
to examine as to whether the learned State Appellate Authority,
Bihar, Patna was justified in setting aside the order dated
20.06.2024 passed by the learned District Teachers Appellate
Authority, Sitamarhi and consequently cancelling the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
31/54
appointments of the petitioners, who were appointed pursuant to a
long pending dispute arising out of the 2008 selection process.
From the materials available on record, it appears that
the grievance of the petitioners does not arise out of any fresh
claim raised after closure of the selection process, rather the
petitioners had been agitating their grievances since the very
inception of the 2008-10 selection process. The records would
show that the petitioners had participated in the counselling
process and their grievance was that despite being otherwise
eligible and despite availability of vacancies, appointment letters
were not issued to them due to administrative irregularities and
disputes between the authorities concerned. It further appears that
immediately after such irregularities, representations and
proceedings were initiated before the competent authority and
ultimately the matter reached the learned District Teachers
Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi.
The learned District Appellate Authority, while
passing the order dated 20.06.2024 in Case No. 168/2010 and
79/2023, appears to have taken into consideration not only the
records relating to the counselling process but also the
departmental circulars and communications issued from time to
time by the Education Department. The said authority recorded a

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
32/54
categorical finding that the petitioners had been deprived of
appointment due to circumstances beyond their control and that
the authorities concerned had failed to implement the directions
issued by the Department regarding completion of the counselling
and appointment process.
At this stage, it becomes relevant to refer to Letter No.
1475 dated 04.12.2010 issued by the Principal Secretary,
Education Department, as also Memo No. 861 dated 13.12.2010
communicated by the District Superintendent of Education,
Sitamarhi, wherein directions had been issued regarding
completion of counselling and appointment against the remaining
vacancies. The relevant extract of the said communications are
quoted here:
“the selection letter be ensured to
the candidates on the fixed date after
counseling. After expiry of the fix date no
selection letter will be legal. Simultaneously,
no selection will be done after the fix date and
the 2nd phase appointment will be deemed to
be completed. Only the disputed cases by the
order of the appellate authority or in the light
of the special direction of the Department the
employment might be done”
The learned District Appellate Authority has
specifically relied upon the said departmental communications

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
33/54
while directing issuance of appointment letters in favour of the
petitioners.
Similarly, Memo No. 998 dated 03.10.2017 issued by
the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna assumes
considerable significance in the facts of the present case. From
perusal of the said memo, it prima facie appears that the
Department itself had clarified that vacancies relating to a
particular selection process cannot automatically be treated as
extinguished if the dispute concerning such vacancies is pending
before a competent forum. The said circular also appears to have
recalled earlier instructions which had created confusion regarding
carrying forward of vacancies.
The learned State Appellate Authority, however, while
setting aside the order of the learned District Appellate Authority,
primarily proceeded on the reasoning that the first and second
phases of appointment had already concluded and the vacancies
stood carried forward to subsequent phases. In the considered
opinion of this Court, such reasoning does not appear to be fully
sustainable in the peculiar facts of the present case.
The present case is not one where stale claims are
being raised by persons who remained silent for years together
without pursuing their remedies. Rather, the materials on record

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
34/54
indicate continuous litigation and pursuit of remedies by the
petitioners from the year 2010 itself. The delay in culmination of
the proceedings cannot entirely be attributed to the petitioners,
particularly when the functioning of the appellate authorities
remained affected for considerable periods and the dispute itself
remained pending before competent forums.
The learned State Appellate Authority also appears to
have overlooked the settled principle that a candidate cannot
ordinarily be made to suffer for administrative lapses or inter se
disputes between authorities, especially when the candidate has
approached the appropriate forum within reasonable time. Once
the petitioners had questioned their non-selection before the
competent appellate authority during the subsistence of the
selection dispute, the vacancies relating to such dispute could not
have been mechanically merged with future vacancies so as to
defeat their legitimate claim.
In this regard, the judgment rendered by this Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 19754 of 2021 (Upendra Kumar and Others vs.
State of Bihar and Others) , annexed as Annexure-P/28, assumes
importance. In the said judgment, this Court categorically
observed that once appointments had been made pursuant to the
orders of the District Appellate Authority and the candidates had

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
35/54
already joined and discharged duties, their appointments ought not
to be interfered with merely on presumptions that the vacancies
had merged into subsequent phases. This Court further held that
the State Appellate Authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by
proceeding on extraneous considerations. The relevant
observations of this Court is reproduced herein for perusal:
“This Court finds that such observations
are totally beyond the scope of the case and the State
Appellate Authority has proceeded to take notice of
facts which are not required to be considered for the
disposal of the appeal. There was no direction by the
District Appellate Authority or observation that the
selection process of 2008 stands closed nor it was the
case that the posts have merged with the third phase
of selection. When the petitioners had already joined
no case of shifting of vacancies to next selection
process can be presumed. Such presumptions drawn
by the State Appellate Authority is found to be
without basis. Observations as in para 13 noticed
above are based on extraneous considerations. In the
opinion of this court the State Appellate Authority
has gone beyond its jurisdiction.
Further this Court also notices that the
interpretation of the order of the District Appellate
Authority as taken by the State Appellate Authority is
also mis-conceived. The District Appellate Authority
has rightly directed to consider the case of the
petitioners for appointments. Appointments could not
have been directed to be made by the authority as the
appointment is the exclusive domain of the employing
unit.
Further, there is no requirement of
counselling when a final merit has already been
prepared and on the said basis candidates who are

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
36/54
placed in the merit cannot be deprived of their right
for consideration for employment. The State
Appellate Authority has failed to take notice that
appointments were already made and the candidates
had already started working on the post, their
appointments cannot be said to be illegal or
fraudulent. In view thereof, the order passed by the
State Appellate Authority is found to be without
basis. The judgments cited by the based State
Appellate are on a wrong interpretation of the order
of the District Appellate Authority and therefore
would have no application. The order therefore
deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
The order of the District Appellate Authority is
upheld. The appointments made in pursuance thereof
need not be interfered. The petitioners shall be
allowed to continue in the posts.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed
with all consequential benefits. No costs.”
Likewise, the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 277
of 2012 (Ashok Prasad Yadav and Others vs. State of Bihar
and Others) , annexed as Annexure-P/27, also supports the
proposition that where the selection process could not be
completed due to circumstances beyond the control of candidates
and authorities, the candidates cannot be deprived of consideration
merely because time has elapsed. This Court in the said case
recognized the power of the authorities to complete the pending
process and make appointments from the finalized merit list after
obtaining necessary permission from the Department. The relevant
portion of the said judgment is quoted herein for ready reference:

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
37/54
"From the impugned order of the
Appellate Authority it is clear that on account
of earlier Block Education Extension Officer
being arrested on the charge of corruption and
later on, on being released from custody, his
non-cooperation in handing over the relevant
papers of the pending selection process to the
successor Block Education Extension Officer,
process of selection could not be completed.
The entire paper was also not produced before
the Appellate Authority. Hence, in paragraph
16 of the order, the Appellate Authority has
directed the District Education Officer,
Muzaffarpur to get all the papers collected
and complete the selection process for
appointment of Teachers in the Block which
remained pending due to unforeseeable
circumstances. However, the Appellate
Authority has not accepted the plea of the
petitioners that an order should be issued for
fresh appointment.
This Court considers that the
approach of the Appellate authority has been
correct as unless and until selection process is
completed and the Employment Agency finds
the petitioners fit for appointment on the basis
of the merit list after completing the process of
selection, the Appellate Authority could not
issue orders for their appointment. But that
does not mean that, if after completing the
selection process, petitioners are found
eligible for appointment, they cannot be
considered for the same on account of the fact
that their claim at this stage has been rejected
by the Appellate Authority. The last date of
completion of process of selection was
28.12.2010. However, it could not be
completed because of the circumstances
beyond the control of the candidates and other

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
38/54
authorities. Hence the Employment Agency in
the process of compliance of the order of the
Appellate Authority will be at liberty to seek
specific permission from the Department for
completing the process and making
appointment from the finalized merit list for
filling up posts.
The writ application is disposed of
with the aforesaid observations and
directions.”
Further, the petitioners have specifically challenged
the legality of the order passed by the learned State Appellate
Authority on the ground that the same was passed by a single
administrative member despite the statutory requirement of
quorum under Rule 4(3) of the Rules, 2015. In this regard,
reliance has rightly been placed upon the order dated 17.04.2025
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17508 of 2021 (Pradip Kumar Yadav @
Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Others vs. State of Bihar and
Others) , annexed as Annexure-P/31, wherein this Hon’ble Court
observed that matters pending before the State Appellate Authority
are required to be decided in accordance with the prescribed
quorum. The said issue assumes significance because the legality
of the very composition of the authority goes to the root of the
decision-making process.
The learned State Appellate Authority also appears to
have placed heavy reliance upon the judgment rendered in R.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
39/54
Vishwanath Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Others for cancelling
the appointments from the very date of appointment and for
denying salary to the petitioners. However, the factual foundation
of the present case appears entirely different. This is not a case
involving fraud, forged certificates, impersonation or
misrepresentation by the petitioners. There is no allegation that the
petitioners lacked the requisite qualification or had secured
appointment by deceitful means. On the contrary, the materials on
record indicate that the petitioners were found eligible and were
appointed pursuant to orders passed by a competent appellate
authority after considering the records of the case. Therefore, the
principles applicable in cases involving fraudulent appointments
cannot be mechanically applied to the facts of the present case.
Moreover, it is not in dispute that after issuance of
appointment letters pursuant to the order dated 20.06.2024, the
petitioners joined their respective schools and discharged duties.
The respondent authorities themselves permitted such joining and
accepted work from the petitioners for a considerable period.
Therefore, the abrupt cancellation of appointments solely on the
basis of the appellate order, without properly considering the
peculiar factual background and the departmental circulars

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
40/54
governing disputed vacancies, appears arbitrary and
disproportionate.
Thus, upon overall consideration of the facts,
departmental circulars, findings recorded by the learned District
Appellate Authority and the judgments relied upon by the
petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated
25.04.2025/17.04.2025 passed by the learned State Appellate
Authority, Bihar, Patna suffers from non-consideration of relevant
materials, erroneous application of law relating to disputed
vacancies, and failure to appreciate the continuous pendency of
the dispute since the original selection process. Consequently, the
impugned order is not fully sustainable in the eyes of law.
Issue 2. Whether the consequential actions taken
by the respondent authorities, including Memo No. 1325 dated
26.04.2025 issued by the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi
and Memo No. 458 dated 22.05.2025 issued by the Block
Development Officer-cum-Secretary, Block Teacher
Employment Unit, Bathnaha, cancelling the services of the
petitioners, are legally valid and in conformity with the
principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed
under the relevant service rules, particularly when the
petitioners had already joined and discharged duties pursuant

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
41/54
to the order passed by the learned District Teachers Appellate
Authority?
The second issue relates to the legality and validity of
the consequential actions taken by the respondent authorities
pursuant to the order passed by the learned State Appellate
Authority, namely Memo No. 1325 dated 26.04.2025 issued by
the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi and Memo No. 458 dated
22.05.2025 issued by the Block Development Officer-cum-
Secretary, Block Teacher Employment Unit, Bathnaha, whereby
the services of the petitioners came to be cancelled.
At the outset, it is necessary to note that the
petitioners were not merely candidates awaiting consideration,
rather they had already been issued appointment letters pursuant
to the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned District
Teachers Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi and thereafter they had
joined their respective places of posting and discharged duties as
Prakhand Teachers. Therefore, on the date when the impugned
consequential orders came to be issued, the petitioners were
admittedly working against civil posts under the State and their
appointments had attained a certain degree of operational finality
unless set aside in accordance with law.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
42/54
The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the
authorities proceeded to cancel their services in a mechanical
manner merely on the basis of the appellate order without
independently complying with the procedural safeguards
contemplated under the service rules and principles of natural
justice.
From the records, it appears that immediately after the
order dated 25.04.2025/17.04.2025 was passed by the learned
State Appellate Authority, the District Education Officer,
Sitamarhi issued Memo No. 1325 dated 26.04.2025 directing the
Block Development Officer, Bathnaha to cancel the appointments
of the petitioners within a fortnight. The speed with which the
direction was issued, even during pendency of the writ
proceedings, lends substance to the grievance of the petitioners
that the authorities had already made up their minds to remove
them from service without objectively considering the legal
consequences involved.
The petitioners have specifically relied upon Rule 15
(Chha) of the Bihar Primary Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 to
contend that termination or cancellation of appointment cannot be
effected without following due procedure and without affording
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected employees. The

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
43/54
requirement of adherence to principles of natural justice in matters
affecting civil consequences is now too well settled to require
elaborate discussion.
Though the respondents have attempted to justify the
action by stating that notices were issued to the petitioners prior to
passing Memo No. 458 dated 22.05.2025, the materials on record
indicate that such exercise was merely formal in nature and not a
meaningful adjudicatory process. The notices appear to have been
issued only after the decision to cancel the appointments had
substantially been taken in view of the directions flowing from the
State Appellate Authority. The authorities do not appear to have
independently examined whether the appointments of the
petitioners suffered from any fraud, misrepresentation or
disqualification warranting removal from service with
retrospective effect.
It further appears that the cancellation orders were
passed in a collective and generalized manner without examining
the individual cases of the petitioners separately. Such a course of
action, particularly in service matters involving livelihood and
civil consequences, cannot ordinarily be approved in law.
In this context, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Kamal Nayan Mishra vs. State of M.P. & Others (210

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
44/54
AIR SCW 315) , relied upon by the petitioners in the interlocutory
application, assumes relevance. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court emphasized that termination from service without
proper inquiry and opportunity of hearing is unsustainable in law.
The facts of the present case further show that there is
no allegation that the petitioners had secured appointment by
producing forged documents or by practicing fraud upon the
authorities. The entire dispute essentially revolves around legality
of appointments arising out of an old selection process and
interpretation of departmental guidelines concerning disputed
vacancies. Therefore, before directing cancellation of service from
the very date of appointment, the authorities were required to act
with greater caution and fairness.
Another important aspect which cannot be overlooked
is that Memo No. 458 dated 22.05.2025 itself records that the
order would remain subject to the final outcome of C.W.J.C. No.
7889 of 2025. This itself indicates that the authorities were
conscious of the pendency of judicial scrutiny before this Court.
Once the matter was sub judice and substantial legal questions
concerning the validity of the appointments were already under
consideration before this Court, the respondent authorities ought

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
45/54
to have exercised restraint instead of precipitating the matter by
giving immediate effect to the cancellation orders.
The action of the authorities also appears inconsistent
with the settled principle that where appointments are made
pursuant to orders passed by a competent judicial or quasi-judicial
authority, such appointments cannot lightly be nullified through
administrative instructions without full adjudicatory consideration.
The petitioners had joined service not through any clandestine
process but pursuant to an order passed by the learned District
Teachers Appellate Authority after hearing the parties and
considering the records. Consequently, the respondent authorities
were required to proceed in a legally balanced manner while
dealing with the issue of cancellation.
It is also significant that the consequential orders
direct cancellation of appointments from the very date of
appointment itself. Such retrospective invalidation carries serious
civil and financial consequences, including denial of salary and
continuity of service. Any order producing such drastic
consequences must satisfy strict standards of fairness,
proportionality and procedural compliance. the impugned
consequential actions, therefore, do not appear to satisfy such
requirements.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
46/54
Thus, upon consideration of the manner in which
Memo No. 1325 dated 26.04.2025 and Memo No. 458 dated
22.05.2025 were issued, this Court is of the opinion that the
respondent authorities proceeded in undue haste and failed to
ensure a fair, independent and legally sustainable decision-making
process before cancelling the services of the petitioners.
Accordingly, the consequential actions taken against the
petitioners do not appear to be fully consistent with the principles
of natural justice and the procedural safeguards governing
termination from service.
Issue 3. Whether the petitioners, who claim to have
participated in the counselling process of the 2008 selection,
pursued their grievances before the competent appellate
authorities since the year 2010, and were ultimately appointed
pursuant to judicial/quasi-judicial orders, can be denied
continuation in service and salary on the ground that the
vacancies had allegedly lapsed or merged into subsequent
phases of appointment, despite there being pending litigation
and departmental instructions regarding disputed vacancies?
Finding on Issue No.3
This Court finds that the controversy involved in the
present case is not merely with respect to delayed appointment,

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
47/54
but relates to the effect of long pending litigation arising out of a
disputed selection process and the rights flowing from an
adjudicatory order passed in favour of the petitioners after
consideration of such dispute by the competent authority.
The stand of the respondent authorities is essentially
that the vacancies relating to the 2008 appointment process had
exhausted or stood carried forward to subsequent phases of
appointment and, therefore, no appointment could legally be
granted after completion of the recruitment phase. However, such
submission cannot be examined in isolation divorced from the
peculiar facts of the present case.
The materials brought on record show that the
petitioners had asserted their grievance with regard to non-
consideration in the counselling process since the year 2010 itself.
The case of the petitioners is not that they approached the
authorities for the first time after closure of the recruitment
process; rather, their grievance originated contemporaneously with
the recruitment exercise itself and remained pending before the
appellate forums for years together.
From the records, it further appears that proceedings
relating to Case No. 168/2010 remained pending before the
learned District Appellate Authority and thereafter Complaint

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
48/54
Case No. 79/2023 was also instituted seeking disposal and
implementation of the pending dispute which in effect was for
revival/reconsideration of the earlier order passed in Case No. 168
of 2010, and was not a new case. Ultimately, after hearing the
parties and considering the departmental communications relating
to counselling and remaining vacancies, the learned District
Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi passed the order dated 20.06.2024
directing issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners.
Thus, the appointments granted to the petitioners were
not fresh appointments dehors the process, nor appointments made
by creation of supernumerary posts or by bypassing the statutory
procedure. Their appointments emanated from adjudication of a
dispute which had its roots in the original 2008 selection
itself.This distinction assumes considerable importance. The
respondent authorities have heavily relied upon the plea that the
vacancies had already merged into subsequent recruitment cycles.
However, the petitioners have specifically relied upon
departmental instructions regarding disputed vacancies,
particularly the communication referred to in the pleadings and
annexures, to contend that disputed vacancies were required to be
treated separately and could not automatically lapse merely
because subsequent phases of recruitment had taken place.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
49/54
At this stage, it becomes relevant to note that the
learned District Appellate Authority while passing the order dated
20.06.2024 had taken into consideration the departmental
communications issued in relation to counselling and remaining
vacancies. The authority had also recorded findings regarding
non-compliance of departmental directions relating to counselling
of eligible candidates. Therefore, the order in favour of the
petitioners was not passed in ignorance of the recruitment history
but after examining the peculiar circumstances arising out of the
pending dispute.
This Court further finds that the respondents have not
brought on record any material conclusively demonstrating that
the vacancies forming subject matter of the dispute had ceased to
exist for all purposes despite pendency of litigation since 2010.
Mere completion of subsequent recruitment phases cannot
automatically extinguish rights arising out of pending
disputes, particularly where the candidates had already
invoked the jurisdiction of the competent authority within
reasonable time and the matter remained sub judice for years.
A litigant cannot ordinarily be made to suffer solely because
adjudication by the authority took considerable time.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
50/54
The petitioners cannot be faulted for the prolonged
pendency before the appellate authority, especially when the
records show that notices were issued from time to time and the
matter continued before the competent forum. If ultimately the
learned District Appellate Authority found merit in the grievance
of the petitioners and directed their appointments, the
consequences arising therefrom could not have been nullified
merely by referring to subsequent recruitment phases without
adequately addressing the effect of the pending litigation and
disputed vacancies.
Another important aspect which deserves
consideration is that after issuance of appointment letters, the
petitioners were permitted to join and discharge duties. The
respondent authorities accepted their joining and treated them as
serving teachers. The petitioners also underwent training and
acquired teaching experience during their continuance in service.
Therefore, the appointments were not merely paper appointments
but appointments acted upon by the authorities themselves.
In such circumstances, abrupt denial of continuation
in service and salary solely on the ground that the vacancies
allegedly stood merged with future recruitment cycles would
result in serious prejudice to the petitioners, particularly when

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
51/54
their appointments originated from adjudication of a long pending
dispute connected with the original selection process itself.
This Court is also of the considered opinion that the
issue involved herein is not a case of unauthorized entry into
service through fraud or manipulation. The petitioners were
appointed pursuant to an adjudicatory order passed by a
competent authority and through the official process of the Block
Teacher Employment Unit. Therefore, equitable considerations
also operate in favour of the petitioners.
The departmental instructions relating to disputed
vacancies, as relied upon by the petitioners, also lend support to
the proposition that vacancies involved in pending disputes could
not have been treated identically with ordinary unfilled vacancies
liable to automatic carry forward.
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners, who had
pursued their grievances since the year 2010 and were ultimately
appointed pursuant to the order passed by the learned District
Appellate Authority, could not have been denied continuation in
service and salary merely on the ground that the vacancies had
allegedly lapsed or merged into subsequent phases of recruitment,
particularly when the dispute itself remained pending throughout

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
52/54
and departmental instructions regarding disputed vacancies were
available on record. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour
of the petitioners.
34. Upon hearing learned counsels for the parties at
length, considering the rival submissions advanced on their behalf,
and upon careful perusal of the pleadings, annexures and materials
available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned order dated 25.04.2025/17.04.2025 passed by the
learned State Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna in Appeal No. T-
159/2024 is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
35. This Court finds that the petitioners had
participated in the selection process pursuant to the recruitment
relating to the year 2008 and had raised their grievance before the
competent appellate forum within the framework of law. Their
claim remained pending for a considerable period and was
ultimately adjudicated by the learned District Teacher
Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi, which, upon
appreciation of the relevant materials and departmental
communications, directed issuance of appointment letters in
favour of the petitioners. The appointments so granted were not
dehors the process, but were made pursuant to a judicial/quasi-
judicial order passed by a competent statutory authority and were

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
53/54
thereafter duly acted upon by the respondents themselves. This
Court further finds that the learned State Appellate Authority,
while setting aside the order of the learned District Appellate
Authority and directing cancellation of the petitioners’
appointments, failed to adequately appreciate the legal effect of
the prolonged pendency of the dispute, the departmental
instructions relating to disputed vacancies, and the fact that the
petitioners had already entered service and discharged duties
pursuant to valid appointment orders.
36. Moreover, the consequential actions taken by the
respondent authorities in cancelling the appointments of the
petitioners and denying them continuation in service and salary,
without adherence to proper procedural safeguards and without
any finding of fraud or misconduct attributable to the petitioners,
cannot be sustained. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer for
administrative delay or prolonged pendency of proceedings before
the competent authorities, particularly when their appointments
arose from adjudication of a long-pending dispute and have
already been acted upon.
37. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, the writ application is allowed. The order dated
25.04.2025/17.04.2025 passed by the learned State Appellate

Patna High Court CWJC No.7889 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
54/54
Authority, Bihar, Patna in Appeal No. T-159/2024 is hereby
quashed and set aside. Consequently, the consequential memo no.
1325 dated 26.04.2025 issued under the signature of the District
Education Officer, Sitamarhi, and memo no. 458 dated 22.05.2025
issued under the signature of the Block Development Officer-cum-
Secretary, Block Teacher Employment Unit, Bathnaha, Sitamarhi,
are also hereby quashed.
38. The respondent authorities are directed to restore
and allow the petitioners to continue on their respective posts
forthwith and to permit them to discharge their duties without any
hindrance. The petitioners shall also be entitled to continuity of
service and all consequential service benefits, including payment
of arrears of salary as well as current salary, in accordance with
law.
39. The writ application is allowed on the aforesaid
terms. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending
interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kiran/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 05.05.2026.
Uploading Date 15.05.2026.
Transmission Date N/A