Bound Appellate Decisions Cannot Be Suo Motu Reconsidered by Subordinate Administrative Authorities Lacking Review Jurisdiction

The petitioner was selected for the post of Clerk at Madrasa No. 145 following a recruitment process overseen by Board-nominated experts

Despite his first-rank merit position, the Chairman of the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board rejected his recommendation and directed the appointment of Respondent No. 8 (Aisha Khatoon), who was not in the original panel

The petitioner appealed this decision under Section 28 of the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board Act, 1981. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal on 08.10.2024, quashing the Board’s order

Instead of complying, the Board entertained a review petition from Respondent No. 8. Although the Appellate Authority eventually dismissed the review on 31.07.2025 for lack of jurisdiction, it directed the Board to "take action in accordance with law"

The Board used this direction to issue a new order (Memo No. 1569 dated 17.12.2025) which again rejected the petitioner’s claim and upheld Respondent No. 8’s appointment

Section 28 of the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board Act, 1981, regarding the finality of appellate orders

Doctrine of functus officio, holding that once a statutory appeal is decided, the authority cannot review its own decision without express statutory power

Article 30 of the Constitution regarding the autonomy of minority institutions, as interpreted in 1985 PLJR 837 (as affirmed in (1994) Supp. (2) SCC 509) and 1988 PLJR 1107, which establish that the Board cannot substitute the Managing Committee's choice of candidates with its own

The Court reasoned that the Appellate Authority’s order dated 08.10.2024 had attained finality, making it binding on the Board

The Board’s subsequent order (Memo No. 1569) was held to be an impermissible attempt to achieve indirectly what it could not do directly—namely, reviving an order that had already been set aside

The Court clarified that the phrase "take action in accordance with law" in the review dismissal order merely mandated consequential administrative steps to implement the successful appeal, not a de novo adjudicatory process

Furthermore, a subordinate administrative body cannot sit in judgment over its superior appellate authority's findings

Since the selection process was conducted with Board-nominated experts and no fraud was proved, the Board had no jurisdiction to ignore the Managing Committee's recommendation in a minority-run institution

It held that the Board's obligation was strictly limited to granting approval to the petitioner’s appointment as Clerk and directed the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board to give full effect to the appellate order dated 08.10.2024 and grant the necessary approval to the petitioner within eight weeks