Employment must be considered under the final merit list, with a supernumerary post created if necessary.

In 2006, an advertisement was issued for appointment of Panchayat Teachers in Gram Panchayat Raj, Bela Simri. Niraj Kumar, belonging to the Extremely Backward Class category, participated in the selection and appeared higher in the merit list than private respondent Niranjan Kumar.

Niraj’s name appeared in the merit list dated 30 November 2006, whereas Niranjan’s name was allegedly absent from the earlier list dated 8 November 2006.

Niranjan was nevertheless appointed as a Panchayat Teacher in November 2007. Following an inquiry, the Block Education Officer found the appointment of Niranjan and another candidate to be illegal, and the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority directed appointment in Niraj’s place.

Niranjan challenged that decision. The State Appellate Authority allowed his appeal and set aside the District Authority’s order.

Niraj challenged the State Appellate Authority’s decision in C.W.J.C. No. 7453 of 2019, but the writ petition was dismissed by relying on the decision in C.W.J.C. No. 13233 of 2019.

During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 14622 of 2024, directed a fresh inquiry into the genuineness of the competing merit lists, with notice and hearing to the affected parties.

Thereafter, the Director, Primary Education, by Memo No. 1526 dated 5 June 2025, held that the merit list dated 30 November 2006 was the final and operative list.

Whether the decision in C.W.J.C. No. 13233 of 2019, concerning the validity of the appointment of another candidate on the basis of the disputed merit lists, was applicable to Niraj Kumar’s claim

Whether the merit list dated 30 November 2006 was the genuine and operative final merit list for determining appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher

Whether Niraj Kumar could be appointed or accommodated notwithstanding the private respondent’s subsequent absorption as an “Exclusive Teacher” under the Bihar School Exclusive Teachers Rules, 2023

Whether Niraj Kumar was entitled to salary and other consequential financial benefits from the date of publication of the final merit list

The Court applied Rule 9(vii) of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, under which appointment was to be made on the basis of the duly prepared and finalised merit list.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s directions in Pramod Kumar Sexena v. State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 14622 of 2024, that competing merit lists must be examined through a full-fledged inquiry, after notice, disclosure of the inquiry material, and an opportunity of hearing to affected candidates.

The Court also applied Rule 3 of the Bihar School Exclusive Teachers Rules, 2023, which creates a separate cadre for local-body teachers who pass the competency test and provides that vacancies arising in that cadre are not to be filled by local bodies.

The Court further applied the settled principle that financial benefits cannot be granted for a period during which the claimant did not actually render service.

The Court held that the subsequent Supreme Court proceedings and the Director’s decision materially altered the legal position that had existed when the writ petition was dismissed.

The Supreme Court had required determination of the genuine merit list after hearing the affected parties, and the competent authority subsequently found the list dated 30 November 2006 to be the final and operative list.

Accordingly, the earlier decision relied upon by the Single Judge could not conclusively defeat Niraj’s claim.

The Court accepted that the private respondent’s status as an Exclusive Teacher prevented his replacement in that cadre under Rule 3 of the 2023 Rules; however, that consideration did not extinguish Niraj’s claim for appointment on the basis of the final 2006 merit list.

The appropriate relief was therefore to direct the Director to consider Niraj’s employment in the Panchayat Teacher cadre, including creation of a supernumerary post if no vacancy existed.

Since Niraj had not actually worked during the intervening period, the Court declined retrospective salary or consequential financial benefits.

The Court directed the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, to consider Niraj Kumar’s employment on the basis of the final merit list dated 30 November 2006; if no Panchayat Teacher vacancy was available, the authority was permitted to consider creation of a supernumerary post.

The private respondent’s existing status as an Exclusive Teacher was not to result in his replacement under the 2023 Rules.

Niraj Kumar was denied salary or other financial benefits for the period during which he had not rendered actual service.