Writ Petition for Enforcement of Appellate Orders Maintainable Only After Exhausting Statutory Execution Remedies.

The petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Teacher in 2022 following a counseling process.

Shortly after joining, her counseling was canceled and her services were terminated via Memo No. 2161 dated 15.06.2022, based on an enquiry report alleging selection irregularities.

The petitioner challenged this before the High Court, which directed her to the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Gopalganj.

On 13.08.2025, the Appellate Authority quashed the termination and directed the respondents to accept her joining after certificate verification.

Despite multiple representations, the authorities failed to comply.

The petitioner filed the present writ seeking enforcement of the Appellate Authority's order, citing similar reliefs granted by coordinate benches in other matters.

1. Whether a writ petition for mandamus is maintainable when a statutory remedy for the execution/compliance of the Appellate Authority's order exists under the relevant Rules.

2. Whether the previous orders of coordinate benches granting direct relief in similar circumstances are binding precedents or per incuriam.

The court primarily applied Rule 16 of the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Dispute Redressal and Appeal) Rules, 2020, which empowers the Appellate Authority to impose penalties up to Rs. 50,000 and recommend departmental proceedings for non-compliance of its orders.

The court further relied on the doctrine of per incuriam as defined in State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 448, which holds that a decision rendered in ignorance of a statutory provision is not binding on a coordinate bench.

The court observed that while the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for joining, a specific statutory mechanism for the execution of orders exists under Rule 16 of the 2020 Rules.

The court reasoned that since the statute provides a remedy for non-compliance (imposition of punishment and recovery of penalties), the petitioner must exhaust that alternative remedy before approaching the High Court.

Regarding the petitioner’s reliance on previous coordinate bench orders (e.g., Raju Yadav and Kumari Rashmi), the court determined those decisions were rendered without considering Rule 16.

Applying the ratio from Kalika Kuer, the court held those prior judgments to be per incuriam because they were decided in ignorance of the governing statutory provisions regarding the Appellate Authority's enforcement powers.

However, noting that the District Teachers Appellate Authority was currently vacant, the Court directed the State authorities to appoint a Chairman/Member within four months to ensure the petitioner could effectively pursue her remedy.

All pending applications were disposed of.