Jitendra Kumar Yadav @ Jitendra Kr. Yadav vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.922 of 2023
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar Yadav @ Jitendra Kr. Yadav Son of Jai Narayan Yadav
Resident of Village- Katiyama, Police Station- Chakai, District- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Jamui.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamui.
6. The Block Development Officer, Chakai, Jamui.
7. The Block Education Officer Chakai, Jamui.
8. The Mukhiya, Dulampur Gram Panchayat, Dulampur, Chakai, Jamui.
9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Dulampur, Chakai, Jamui.
10. The Member, District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Jamui.
11. Dinesh Prasad Yadav Son of Sri Bachha Prasad Yadav Resident of Village-
Katiyama, Police Station- Chakai, District- Jamui.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
: Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Vipin Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, AC to GP-27
For the Res. No. 11 : Mr. Brishketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-08-2026
Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent no.11.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
2/23
“i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the order dated
23.08.2022 passed by the State Appellate
Authority, Patna, Bihar in Appeal No. 86 of
2020 whereby the appeal filed by the
appellant has been allowed without
considering the materials available on
record and also the order passed by the
District Appellate Authority, Jamui in the
case of the petitioner.
ii) For holding that the appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra is
valid and legal and with the direction to the
respondent authorities to allow the petitioner
to continue working on the post of Panchayat
Teacher with all consequential benefits.
iii) For holding that the appointment of the
private respondent is illegal and
unsustainable in view of the fact that the said
appointment has been made on the basis of
the forged resignation letter of the petitioner.
(iv) For a direction to the respondent authorities
to allow the petitioner to work as Panchayat
Teacher with payment of arrears of salary.”
3. The brief facts, which are necessary for adjudication
off the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed
on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the Primary School,
Katiyama in the district of Jamui on 01.07.2005, in accordance
with the procedure prescribed by law. He gave his joining on
02.07.2005 and started discharging his duties. In terms of a
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
3/23
decision of the State Government in 2006 to appoint Panchayat
Shikshak in different primary schools, the petitioner, being the
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, was appointed to the post of Panchayak
Shikshak in the primary school, Katiyama. The petitioner has
regularly and diligently discharged his duty to the satisfaction of
the authorities concerned and absentee report, duly singed by the
competent authority was also prepared. The petitioner regularly
participated in the C.R.C. meetings and the B.R.C. meetings,
which is held every month. He also appeared in the Elementary
Teachers Evaluation Examination, 2010 conducted by the Human
Resource Development, Bihar, Patna on 20.02.2010 and obtained
80 marks. During his tenure as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, he was
appointed as Polling Officer by the District Election Officer-cum-
District Magistrate, Jamui for the Assembly Election, 2010. He
was appointed as Polling Officer for the Panchayat Election, 2011.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was never paid
any remuneration for the period of his appointment, despite the
fact that he continued to discharge his duties. The petitioner
approached the Panchayat Secretary and raised his grievance with
regard to non-payment of his salary several times. When no salary
was paid to the petitioner, the petitioner approached the District
Education Officer, Jamui, the Block Development Officer, Chakai
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
4/23
and the Block Education Extension Officer, Chakai by submitting
his application on 06.02.2008 with regard to non-payment of
salary. The petitioner subsequently came to know that the
respondent no.11 has arbitrarily and illegally been appointed in his
place, without removing him in accordance with law and on
learning the said illegal appointment of the respondent no.11, he
submitted a representation before the Human Resources
Development Department and vide letter no. 162 dated
23.02.2010, the Department directed the District Teacher
Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Jamui to enquire into the whole
issue. A case bearing Case No. 04 of 2010 was registered by the
Tribunal and an enquiry was initiated. The Tribunal vide its order
dated 25.06.2010 affirmed the appointment of the petitioner and
proceeded to cancel the appointment of the private respondent
no.11. Being aggrieved, the private respondent no.11 filed
C.W.J.C. No. 11596 of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court, against the
order dated 25.06.2010 passed in Case No. 04 of 2009 by the
District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Jamui. The
Block Education Extension Officer sent a list of teachers of the
school concerning the Gram Panchayat, including the school of the
petitioner, namely U.M.S., Katiyama, to the District Education
Officer on 15.03.2007. From the said document, it would transpire
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
5/23
that the petitioner was working as a Teacher in the school. The writ
petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 11596 of 2010, filed by the
respondent no. 11 herein was allowed vide order dated 20.05.2015,
whereby the order passed by the Tribunal dated 25.06.2010 was set
aside. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to decide all
the questions of dispute raised in the writ petition and a direction
was issued to pass fresh order, after taking note of all the disputed
questions of fact. Pursuant to the order dated 20.05.2015 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 11596 of 2010, the petitioner filed Case No. 13 of
2015 before the District Appellate Authority, Jamui. The case filed
by the petitioner bearing Case No. 13 of 2015 was finally heard
and allowed vide order dated 25.01.2017. In terms of the orders
given by the Tribunal on 25.01.2017, the Block Education Officer,
Chakai vide his letter dated 115 dated 11.02.2017 directed the
office to accept the joining of the petitioner in Upgraded Middle
School, Katiyama. The petitioner submitted his joining on
13.02.2017. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the District
Teachers Appellate Authority dated 25.01.2017, the private
respondent no.11 preferred an appeal before the State Appellate
Authority. The appeal preferred by the respondent no.2 was
numbered as Appeal No. 36 of 2017. The State Appellate
Authority vide his order dated 09.03.2018 set aside the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
6/23
passed by the District Teachers Appellate Authority on 25.01.2017.
The matter was remitted back to the District Teachers Appellate
Authority to get the resignation letter of the petitioner examined by
a handwriting expert and some other directions were also given. In
terms of the directions given by the State Appellate Authority vide
its order dated 09.03.2018, the petitioner again moved before the
District Appellate Authority, Jamui. The District Appellate
Authority at Jamui, after recording its finding, proceeded to pass
an order dated 07.03.2020, whereby the appeal was allowed in
favour of the petitioner and the appointment of the private
respondent no.11 was cancelled. Being aggrieved with the order
dated 07.03.2020 passed by the District Teachers Appellate
Authority, Jamui, the respondent no.11 preferred an appeal before
the State Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by the respondent
no.11 was numbered as Appeal No. 86 of 2020. The State
Appellate Authority vide its order dated 23.08.2022, proceeded to
set aside the order passed by the District Teachers Appellate
Authority at Jamui dated 07.03.2020. Being aggrieved with the
orders passed by the State Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No.
86 of 2020, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the State Appellate Authority erred in not considering the fact
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
7/23
that the petitioner was continuously working as Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra/Panchayat Teacher (PSM/PT), as is evident from the
attendance register, and the register related to his attending the
meetings of the CRC and BRC. The State Appellate Authority also
failed to consider the documents related to the petitioner being
deputed for election related duties. He submits that the petitioner
preferred the complaint/appeal before the District Teachers
Appellate Authority, as soon as he came to know about the
appointment of the respondent no.11 in his place. The State
Appellate Authority did not consider the documents, which were
available on record i.e. the absentee report of the petitioner, the
document related to his approaching the concerned authorities for
payment of his honorarium.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the State Appellate Authority failed to consider the
fact that this Hon’ble Court, although remitted back the matter to
the Appellate Authority to decide the disputed question of facts
and the District Teachers Appellate Authority at Jamui decided the
same in favour of the petitioner, however the State Appellate
Authority without even disputing the same, proceeded to allow the
appeal filed by the respondent no.11. He submits that the matter
was remitted back by this Hon’ble Court for deciding the disputed
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
8/23
question of fact, including the letter of resignation of the
petitioner, however the respondent no.11 failed to prove that the
letter of resignation of the petitioner was submitted by him. The
original document of the resignation letter submitted by the
petitioner was never produced by any of the authorities, including
the respondent no.11 and in absence thereof, the State Appellate
Authority proceeded to hold that the appointment of the petitioner
cannot be sustained in view of his resignation. He submits that the
appointment of the respondent no.11 itself is illegal, since in terms
of the 2006 Rules i.e. Rule 5, any appointment can only made after
15 days of the termination/removal of the concerned Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat Teacher, however in the present case,
although, the alleged letter of resignation of the petitioner was
dated 20.07.2005, however the respondent no.11 was appointed on
01.08.2005. He submits that the appointment of the respondent
no.11 was made without any advertisement. Further the relevant
documents produced by the petitioner before the State Appellate
Authority were not considered by the authority and the State
Appellate Authority proceeded to allow the appeal filed by the
respondent no.11 on erroneous grounds.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner to
support the contention refers to and relies upon a judgment of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
9/23
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2026 SCC Online
(SC) 169 (Tharammel Peethambaran and Another Versus T.
Ushakrishnan and Another) , wherein in paragraph no.20, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:-
“ 20. The broad parameters summarising the
procedure to be followed for introducing
secondary evidence are reiterated and
read thus:
20.1 The fundamental principle of the Indian
Evidence Act is that facts have to be
established by primary evidence. 9 Section
64 mandates that documents must be
proved by primary evidence, which is
considered the “best evidence”. Primary
evidence is the rule, while secondary
evidence is an exception admissible only
in the absence of primary evidence. A
party is generally required to produce the
best evidence available; so long as the
superior evidence (the original) is within
a party's possession or reach, they cannot
introduce inferior proof (secondary
evidence). 10
20.2 Before secondary evidence can be
admitted, the party relying on it must lay
a factual foundation. This involves two
steps: First, the party must prove that the
original document actually existed and
was executed. Secondly, the party must
establish valid reasons as to why the
original cannot be furnished. 11
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
10/23
20.3 Secondary evidence is inadmissible until
the non-production of the original is
accounted for in a manner that brings the
case within the specific exceptions
provided in Section 65. 12 If the original
itself is found to be inadmissible through
failure of the party who files it to prove it
to be valid, the same party is not entitled
to introduce secondary evidence of its
contents. 13
20.4 Section 65 of the Evidence Act is
exhaustive and states the specific
circumstances under which secondary
evidence is permissible. To introduce
secondary evidence, a party must satisfy
the conditions of one of the clauses (a)
through (g) of Section 65. 14
20.5 Further, admitting a document as
secondary evidence does not
automatically prove its contents. The
secondary evidence must be authenticated
by foundational evidence showing that the
alleged copy is, in fact, a true copy of the
original. For instance, if a party wishes to
introduce a photostat copy, they must
explain the circumstances under which
the copy was prepared and who possessed
the original at the time the photograph
was taken. 15
20.6 Mere admission of a document or making
it an exhibit does not dispense with the
requirement of proving it in accordance
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
11/23
with the law. The court has an obligation
to examine the probative value of the
document and decide the question of
admissibility before making an
endorsement on the secondary evidence.
If the foundational facts, such as the loss
of the original or the explanation for its
non-production, are not established, the
court cannot legally allow the party to
adduce secondary evidence. 16
20.7 There is no requirement that an
application must be filed to lead
secondary evidence. While a party may
choose to file such an application,
secondary evidence cannot be ousted
solely because no application was filed. It
is sufficient if the party lays the necessary
factual foundation for leading secondary
evidence either in the pleadings or during
the course of evidence. 17 ”
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the appointment of the respondent no.11 itself is
illegal, since when the petitioner did not resign from the post and
the original document related to his resignation was never brought
on record by any of the authorities, including the respondent no.
11, therefore, there is no question of appointment of the
respondent no.11. He further submits that no afresh advertisement
was ever issued, therefore, the appointment of the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
12/23
no.11 is fit to be set aside on the ground that he was appointed
without any advertisement.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
no.11 would submit that the respondent no.11 was appointed in
place of the petitioner on 01.08.2005, however the petitioner slept
over his rights and all of a sudden filed an appeal before the
District Teachers Appellate Authority in 2010. He submits that
even though the petitioner was not getting any remuneration, he
never approached before any of the authorities, who were
competent to decide the claim of the petitioner and this goes to
show that he was not working on the cut off date of 01.07.2006,
w.e.f. which the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra were treated to be
Panchayat Teachers.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent no.11 further
submits that no complaint was pending before any of the
authorities after coming into force of 2006 Rules, since by virtue
of coming into force of the said Rules, any complaint, which was
pending before any of the authorities, was to be transferred before
the Tribunal. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the
petitioner for the first time approached before the Tribunal in
2010.
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
13/23
11. The learned counsel for the respondent no.11 further
submits that there was no question of any fresh advertisement for
appointment of the respondent no.11 in 2005, since the respondent
no.11 was at serial no. 2 of the merit list, which was published and
through which, the petitioner was appointed being at serial no.1 of
the merit list. Since the petitioner gave his joining on 01.07.2005
and submitted his resignation on 20.07.2005 itself, the panel/merit
list, which was published, was still in existence and therefore,
being no.2 in the merit list, the respondent no.11 was appointed,
without any advertisement.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent no.11 to
support his contention refers to and relies upon a judgment of the
Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court reported in 2014 2 PLJR 665
(Kalpana Rani versus the State of Bihar & Ors.) , wherein in
paragraph no.22, the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court has held as
follows:-
“22. The aforesaid Scheme came to an end with
enactment of the 2006 Rules which came
st
into operation on 1 July 2006. The scope
and ambit of the Rules of 2006, particularly
Rule 20 thereof have been discussed in the
above referred matter of Smt. Renu Kumari
Pandey. The relevant paragraphs are
reproduced for convenience:
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
14/23
16. Clause (iii) of Rule 20 of the Rules reflects
the policy decision of the State
Government. We are of the considered
opinion that no legal provision can be
held to be arbitrary or discriminatory or
ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution on hypothetical set of facts.
We, therefore, hold that Clause (iii) of
Rule 20 of the said Rules is neither
arbitrary nor discriminatory nor it is
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
17. Coming to the second issue, we are of the
opinion that the Rules are statutory in
nature and have to be implemented in
letter and spirit. Under Clause (i) of Rule
20 of the Rules all earlier resolutions,
orders, directions issued in respect of
employment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra
are repealed. Consequently, the posts of
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra stood
abolished. Thereafter, no person can be
employed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra;
nor can there be a deemed employment as
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra; nor can there
be a deemed absorption in the service as
Panchayat Shikshak by operation of Rule
20(iii) of the Rules. In our opinion, even
in a case where a person has a legitimate
grievance in respect of his or her non-
selection as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra at
the relevant time or non-continuance as
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, such person
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
15/23
cannot be deemed to have been appointed
as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra; nor can
he/she be deemed to have been employed
st
as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as on 1 July
2006; nor can such person be deemed to
have been absorbed in service as
Panchayat Shikshak under the Rules.”
23. Having considered the scope and ambit of the
Scheme for appointment of Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra and the Rules of 2006, the
Bench held:-
“21. All these petitions arise from the claim
made by the respective writ petitioners
for employment as Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra under the then prevalent scheme
for selection and employment of
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under the
Gram Panchayats. None of them was
employed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra
st
as on 1 July 2006. As we have held
st
that from the date of the Rules (1 July
2006) such persons have no right to
claim employment or deemed
employment as Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra or a right to be absorbed as
Panchayat Shikshak by operation of
Rule 20(iii) of the Rules, the reliefs
prayed for by the writ petitioners
cannot be granted.””
13. The learned counsel for the respondent no.11 further
submits that the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Jamui went
on to record that if there is a dispute with regard to appointment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
16/23
a person and the person concerned, who raises objection with
regard to his appointment fails to substantiate his case beyond all
reasonable doubt, then the appointment of the concerned person
cannot be said to be invalid only on that ground. He submits that in
a criminal case, the evidence has to be appreciated beyond all
reasonable doubt, however in case of departmental
enquiry/departmental proceeding the same is to be on the basis of
preponderance of probability. In the present case, no such effort
has been made by the District Teachers Appellate Authority at
Jamui and he on his own, recorded a finding that the signature of
the person, who has signed on the resignation letter of the
petitioner as well as of the Mukhiya, appears to be same.
14. The learned counsel for the State submits that the
petitioner submitted his resignation on 20.07.2005 and although he
was not being paid any remuneration, despite his contention that
he was continuously discharging his duties, however he for the
first time, approached the Tribunal for his grievance in 2010. The
petitioner was never paid any remuneration from the date of his
appointment till he claims to be working on his post, since
admittedly respondent no. 11 was appointed on 01.07.2006. In
terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court
reported in 2014 2 PLJR 665 (Kalpana Rani versus the State of
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
17/23
Bihar & Ors. ), on the date of 01.07.2006, the petitioner was not
working and therefore, there is no question of the petitioner being
treated to be Panchayat Teacher. He submits that by virtue of 2006
Rules, the person, who was working on the post on 01.07.2006
was to be treated to be Panchayat Teacher and in the present case,
since the respondent no.11 was working on the post on
01.07.2006, he has rightly been treated to be a Panchayat Teacher.
15. In reply to the submission made by the learned
counsel for the respondent no.11 and the State, the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner submits that the case reported in 2014
(2) PLJR 665 (Kalpana Rani versus the State of Bihar & Ors.) , is
not applicable in the case of the petitioner, since the petitioner was
working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 01.07.2006 and the
documents available on record would suggest that he was working
as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, although remuneration was not being
paid to him.
CONSIDERATION
16. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that the case has a chequered
history. From 2010, the petitioner and respondent no.5 are
assailing order in favour of the another. The matter travelled to this
Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court vide its order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
18/23
20.05.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11596 of 2020, proceeded to
remit back the matter to the Teachers Appointment Appellate
Authority by setting aside the order dated 25.06.2017 passed in
Case No. 04 of 2009. This Hon’ble Court directed that sitting
under Article 226, the disputed question of facts cannot be
adjudicated by this Court and therefore, it was directed that the
Appellate Authority will decide all the questions of dispute raised
in the writ petition and pass afresh order, dealing with disputed
questions of fact, which also related to the verification of the so
called resignation letter submitted by the petitioner. The District
Teachers Appellate Authority on remand, proceeded to allow the
case of the petitioner. On the matter being taken before the State
Appellate Authority by the respondent no.11, the State Appellate
Authority again remitted back the matter to the District Teachers
Appellate Tribunal with a direction to the authority to consider the
matter afresh in view of the enquiry report submitted by a Team of
Officer constituted by the District Magistrate, Jamui and after
getting the handwriting in the alleged resignation letter examined
by the handwriting expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory of
the State Government. It was directed that after getting the report
of the handwriting expert and hearing the parties, the District
Appellate Authority will pass the appropriate order. Pursuant to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
19/23
remand order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the State Appellate
Authority, the District Appellate Authority, Jamui tried to get the
so called resignation letter of the petitioner verified from the
Criminal Investigation Bureau, Patna, however the same could not
be verified, since the original letter of the resignation was not sent
before the Criminal Investigation Bureau and in absence thereof,
despite the best effort made by the District Appellate Authority, the
original letter of the resignation of the petitioner was not verified
from any of the authorities i.e. the Criminal Investigation Bureau
or through a handwriting expert or through the Forensic Science
Laboratory. The District Appellate Authority, in absence of any
report of any competent authority/forum, proceeded on his own to
verify the signature of the petitioner, with the signature present on
the resignation letter and went on to record that the signature of the
petitioner is different from the signature, which was present on the
resignation letter and proceeded to allow the case of the petitioner.
Being aggrieved with the order of the District Appellate Authority,
the respondent no.11 filed an appeal before the State Appellate
Authority. The State Appellate Authority after considering the
entire aspect of the matter and by going through the 2006 Rules,
came to the conclusion that it is an admitted position that on
01.07.2006, the respondent no.11 was working and therefore, by
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
20/23
virtue of the Rules, he was absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. The
State Appellate Authority further went on to record that no
grievance was ever raised by the petitioner against the
appointment of the respondent no.11 till 2009-10. From the
records, it also transpired that respondent no.11 was working as a
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 01.07.2006, and therefore, proceeded
to allow the appeal filed by the respondent no.11, by setting aside
the order passed by the District Appellate Authority.
17. Having gone through the orders passed by the
Hon’ble Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Kalpana Rani
(supra), this Court finds that in paragraph no.113 and 114 of the
judgment, the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court has recorded as
under:-
“113. Thus, when the appellant on her own
showing till coming of 2006 Rules came into
force did not even question the appointment
of the writ petitioner on the post of
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, she had no right
accrued under the repealed circular of
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra much less right to
get herself appointed in place of the writ
petitioner. It is well settled that the power to
take advantage of an enactment may without
impropriety be termed a “right”, but the
question is whether it is a “right accrued”.
Lord Herschell said in Abbott v. Minister of
Lands reported in 1895 A.C. 425 had said
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
21/23
that mere right (assuming it to be properly
so called) existing in the members of the
community or any class of them to take
advantage of an enactment, without any act
done by an individual towards availing
himself of that right, cannot properly be
deemed a “right accrued.” This view has
also been received approval in India in the
jugment of the Apex Court in the case of
Lalji Raja & Sons v. Hansraj Nathuram
reported in (1971) S.C. 924, in the case of
Hingerfold Investment Trust Ltd. v. Haridas
Mundra reported in 1972 S.C. 1826 and in
the case of Zobrali v. Arjuna reported in
1980 S.C. 101.
114. In view of the settled law as discussed above,
I will have no difficulty in coming to a
conclusion that the appellant, on the basis of
her so-called empanelment on the post of
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003
(after repeal of the entire scheme of
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra with effect from
1.7.2006), could have either brought a
dispute by filing her complaint in Janta
Darbar on 14.9.2006 or could have sought
any direction for her appointment on the
post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. That was
infact simply impermissible in view of Rule
20(i) of the 2006 Rules.”
18. After considering the said aspect, the Hon’ble
Full Bench in paragraph no.118 of the above judgment has
recorded as under:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
22/23
“118. Having thus given my anxious
consideration, I am of the view that after
1.7.2006, no person, who was earlier an
aspirant for the post of Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra, can be appointed only because his or
her name figured in the panel of Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra. The post of Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra has been abolished with effect
from 1.7.2006 and after abolition of the post,
no one can be appointed on the post of
Panchayat Teacher on the basis of his mere
empanelment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra.
The view taken in the judgment of the
Division Bench in the case of Smt. Renu
Kumari Pandey (supra) is a good law. I will
have no hesitation in holding that the earlier
Division Bench judgment in the case of
Kishori Prasad (supra), for the reasons
indicated above, has not correctly decided
the law and is, accordingly, overruled.”
19. Having considered the entire aspect of the matter
and after going through the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Kalpana Rani (supra), this Court is of the
considered opinion that the respondent no.11 was working as a
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 01.07.2006 and there is no denial in
the entire writ petition that the respondent no.11 was not working
as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 01.07.2006 and by virtue of
coming into force of 2006 Rules as well as by virtue of the judicial
pronouncements in the case of Kalpana rani (supra), this Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.922 of 2023 dt.27-08-2026
23/23
holds that the appointment of the respondent no.11 on the post of
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra w.e.f 01.07.2005 and after coming into
force of 2006 Rules is not required to be interefered with. There is
no infirmity in the orders passed by the State Appellate Authority
dated 23.08.2008.
20. Accordingly, since this Court has already held that
appointment of the respondent no.11 is not in dispute, the writ
petition filed by the petitioner is fit to be rejected and is
accordingly dismissed.
21. Pending application, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.09.2026
Transmission Date NA