Appellants cannot challenge an order on merits after specifically conceding the respondents' claims before the Single Judge.

The respondents (original writ petitioners), appointed as teachers, sought a direction for the grant of the "matric trained scale" effective from the completion of three years of service.

They argued that according to their appointment terms, the state was required to send them for in-service training within two years, but failed to do so despite representations.

In the original writ jurisdiction (C.W.J.C. No. 8084 of 2023), the State’s counsel did not dispute these submissions.

Consequently, the Single Judge directed the State to grant the scale.

The State of Bihar subsequently filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) challenging that order, citing a conflicting Division Bench precedent from 2016.

1. Whether the State-Appellants can challenge a Single Judge's order when they had explicitly conceded to the facts and legal submissions of the petitioners during the original writ proceedings.

2. Whether the respondents are entitled to the matric trained scale from the completion of three years of service despite the delay in their in-service training.

The court applied the principle of "concession in law and fact," establishing that once a party's counsel admits to the opposing side's submissions and the court records such a concession, the party is generally precluded from re-litigating the same issue on appeal.

The court referenced the precedent in Abdus Samad v. The State of Bihar Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 7322 of 2017) and its affirmation in L.P.A. No. 502 of 2021, which holds that employees cannot be made to suffer consequential benefits due to the administrative laches of the employer in failing to provide mandatory training.

The Court observed that in the proceedings before the Single Judge, the counsel for the State "with clarity submitted that the State does not dispute the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners".

This concession led directly to the Single Judge’s conclusion that the teachers could not be penalized for the State's failure to send them for training.

The Division Bench noted that since the Appellants (State) had essentially conceded to the case of the respondents, they lacked valid grounds to file the instant LPA.

The Court emphasized that the judgment being impugned was a direct result of the State's own admission during the hearing.

It held that the State had no ground for appeal after having conceded to the respondents’ case at the first instance.

The State is directed to comply with the original order to consider the grant of the matric trained scale within sixty days and extend consequential benefits within a further month.