Patna High Court
Veena Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10679 of 2022
======================================================
Veena Kumari Wife of Prabhat Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Chipura
Khurd, Post Office- Chipura Khurd, Police Station- Gourichak, District-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat
Building, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The District Programme Officer, Patna.
4. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Patna through its
Secretary.
5. The Secretary, District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Patna.
6. Gram Panchayat, Chipura through its Panchayat Secretary.
7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Chipura, District- Patna.
8. Nita Kumari Wife of Bajrangi Kumar Singh, Daughter of Bimal Kumar
Singh Resident of Village Baruna, Post Office- Chipura Khurd, Police
Station- Gourichak, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Verma, Advocate
Mr. Onkar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Neetu Jha AC to GA-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 03-08-2026
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
"(i) That this application is being filed praying
for issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s or
direction/s for undoing the fraudulent facilitation
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
2/34
of the private respondent no. 8 to man the post of
Panchayat Teacher of Chipura Panchayat within
Sampatchak Block of Patna District SO without
her selection/appointment by the competent
employment unit with declaring the said
wrongful act of the errant respondent/s as
vitiated under fraud and misrepresentation as in
setting aside the order dated 15.7.2019 passed
by the chairpersons of the State Appellate
Authority in connection with Appeal No.
544/2017 whereby and where under the
aforesaid fraudulent facilitation/entry of the pvt.
respondent was not looked into upheld and
petitioner's claim for employment has been
denied in ignoring her merit and further for
quashing the order dated 5.6.2015 passed by, the
District Appellate Authority in case No. 80/14 to
the extent it allowed the appeal of the private
respondent which was earlier dismissed by the
same authority on same prayer, inter-alia, for the
following;
(i) Respondents' impugned act of putting the pvt.
respondent to man the post of panchayat teacher
without her selection be highly deprecated and
accordingly a direction be given to immediately
expel the private respondent from the post with
making recovery of money taken by her in lieu of
salary on the basis of the said fraudulent entry to
the post of Panchayat Teacher;
(ii) The respondents be directed to consider the
case of the petitioner for selection/appointment
to the post of panchayat teacher on the basis of
higher merit marks obtained by her entitling her
(petitioner) placement as above to that of the
private respondent but no selection process
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
3/34
taken up and pvt. respondent has been allowed
to man the post without selection/appointment;
(iii) The respondents be directed to grant all the
consequential benefits to the petitioner for which
the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(iv) Erring respondents be dealt with sternly for
their misdeed, misdemeanor and fraudulent act
committed in connivance with the pvt.
Respondent.
(v) A heavy cost be awarded against the erring
respondents to be paid in favour of the petitioner.
(vi) Any other relief or reliefs be granted to the
petitioner for which the petitioner is found
entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
BRIEF FACTS
3. The brief facts which are essential for adjudication
of the present writ petition are that an advertisement was
published for appointment of Panchayat Teacher in the State of
Bihar, including the Gram Panchayat Raj, Chipura under the
Sampatchak Block of Patna District. The petitioner, the
respondent no. 8 and several others submitted their respective
applications, for the said recruitment. Counselling was held on
10.11.2007
, wherein a list of altogether 18 candidates was
prepared, who participated in the said counselling. The name of
the petitioner was at serial no. 3, whereas the name of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
4/34
respondent no. 8 figures at serial no. 6 of the said list. One nitu
Sinha was finally selected. The respondent no. 8 herein, filed a
writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 14884 of 2009, before this
Hon’ble Court against the selection of the Panchayat Teacher,
since her application, wherein she made complaint with regard
to her non-selection and illegalities committed in the selection
process was not being considered by the local authorities. Vide
order dated 09.02.2010, the writ petition was disposed of with a
direction to the respondent no. 8 to file an appeal before the
District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Patna. In
compliance of the order dated 09.02.2010, passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 14884 of 2009, the respondent no. 8 filed Case No. 24 of
2010 before the District Teachers Employment Appellate
Tribunal, Patna. The Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the
application filed by the respondent no. 8 vide order dated
12.04.2010, whereby the entire appointment of the Chipura
Panchayat for the year 2006 and 2007 was cancelled and
direction was issued to initiate fresh appointment process. One
Shila Kumari filed C.W.J.C. No. 9764 of 2010 before this
Hon’ble Court whereby a prayer was made for quashing the
order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate
Tribunal, Patna on 12.04.2010, in Case No. 24 of 2010, filed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
5/34
the respondent no. 8. The writ petition filed by Shila Kumari
was disposed of vide order dated 28.02.2011 by a Hon’ble
Single Judge of this Court whereby the matter with regard to
Shila Kumari was set aside and was remitted back to the
appellate authority for proceeding afresh with regard to Shila
Kumari. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent
no. 8 herein, filed C.W.J.C. No. 15708 of 2010, before this
Hon’ble Court for compliance of the order dated 12.04.2010,
passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal,
Patna in Case No. 24 of 2010. The Hon’ble Court vide order
dated 20.11.2014 was pleased to dispose of the writ petition
filed by the respondent no. 8 with a direction to approach the
appellate authority for implementation of the order dated
12.04.2010. It is further case of the petitioner that one Nitu
Sinha filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6659 of 2011
before this Hon’ble Court, whereby the order dated 12.04.2010,
passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal,
Patna in Case No. 24 of 2010 was assailed. The said writ
petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.07.2017 with a
direction to the said Nitu Sinha to file her appeal before the
State Appellate Authority, assailing the order dated 12.04.2010,
passed in Case No. 24 of 2010. Nitu Sinha did not file any
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
6/34
appeal against the order dated 12.04.2010, passed by the District
Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Patna in Case No. 24
of 2010. Subsequently, one Puja Kumari filed C.W.J.C. No.
1324 of 2014, before this Hon’ble Court on 03.01.2014,
assailing the order dated 12.04.2010, passed by the District
Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Patna in Case No. 24
of 2010. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Hon’ble
Court vide order dated 16.05.2014. Puja Kumari filed Letters
Patent Appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 1366 of 2014 on 08.09.2014,
whereby she assailed the order dated 16.05.2014, passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 1324 of 2014. The said appeal was allowed vide
order dated 11.01.2016 by setting aside the order of the Tibunal
dated 12.04.2010. In terms of the directions given by this
Hon’ble Court on 20.11.2014 in C.W.J.C. No. 15708 of 2010,
the respondent no. 8 filed appeal Case No. 80 of 2014, before
the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Patna.
The said appeal filed by the respondent no. 8 was disposed of
vide order dated 05.06.2015 with a direction to the Panchayat
Secretary to take appropriate actions within 30 days from the
date of passing of the order with respect to the respondent no. 8.
In the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 8, no notices were
issued to the petitioner and other claimants. The Panchayat
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
7/34
Secretary, without any notice to other claimants, including the
petitioner, directly appointed the respondent no. 8 for extraneous
consideration. The respondent no. 8 gave her joining on
10.09.2015 and is said to have been discharging her duties since
then. The petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 13217 of 2016 before
this Hon’ble Court whereby she assailed the order dated
05.06.2015 passed in appeal Case No. 80 of 2014, which
resulted in appointment of respondent no. 8 herein. The writ
petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.08.2017, with a
direction to the petitioner to file her appeal before the State
Appellate Authority. The petitioner filed an appeal bearing
appeal Case No. 544 of 2017 before the State Appellate
Authority, whereby she assailed the order dated 05.06.2015
passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal
in appeal Case No. 80 of 2014, filed by the respondent no. 8
herein. The State Appellate Authority proceeded to dismiss the
appeal filed by the petitioner vide a reasoned order dated
15.07.2019 without considering all the documents and also on
the ground of limitation.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
on the appeal filed by the respondent no. 8 before the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
8/34
Appellate Authority bearing Case No. 24 of 2010, the District
Appellate Authority after hearing the parties and without
hearing any of the affected parties went on to hold that the entire
selection process made in the year 2006-07 is null and void and
cancelled all the appointments. He submits that since the order
dated 12.04.2010 passed in Case No. 24 of 2010, was passed
without hearing any of the affected candidates, the affected
candidates approached this Hon’ble Court by filing different
writ petitions and this Hon’ble Court after quashing the order
dated 12.04.2010, remitted the matter back to the District
Appellate Authority for hearing the matter afresh and passing
fresh order. The private respondent no. 8 herein also preferred a
writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 14884 of 2009, which was
disposed of vide order dated 09.02.2010 with a direction to the
Tribunal to decide and dispose of the matter, considering the
merit of the case, within a fixed time frame. The Tribunal
without any jurisdiction passed the order dated 12.04.2010,
which was assailed by one Nitu Kumari vide C.W.J.C. No. 6659
of 2011 wherein the private respondent no. 8 herein, was
arrayed as respondent no. 12. The said writ petition was heard
by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court and notices were issued
to the private respondent no. 12 therein. However, she did not
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
9/34
choose to appear in the writ petition and filed a case bearing
Case No. 80 of 2014 before the District Teachers Tribunal with
a prayer to implement the order dated 12.04.2010 passed in
Case No. 24 of 2010. The case preferred by the respondent no. 8
bearing Case No. 80 of 2014 was allowed by the District
Teachers Appellate Tribunal, Patna and vide order dated
05.06.2015, a direction was issued to the employment unit,
Gram Panchayat – Chipura to implement the order passed by the
District Teachers Employment Tribunal in Case No. 24 of 2010
dated 12.04.2010 and it was further directed that the petitioner
Nita Kumari (respondent no. 8 herein) be placed in the merit list
at appropriate position considering her merit marks.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that in compliance of the order dated 05.06.2015, the
Block Education Officer and the Block Development Officer
without any authority to make selection/appointment of
Panchayat teacher, straightaway issued appointment letter to the
private respondent no. 8 herein. The petitioner filed an appeal
before the State Appellate Authority against the order dated
05.06.2015 passed in Case No. 80 of 2014 by the District
Teachers Appellate Tribunal, Patna. The appeal bearing Appeal
No. 544 of 2017 preferred by the petitioner was finally
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
10/34
dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the
Chairperson, State Appellate Authority.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the State Appellate Authority while passing the
order dated 15.07.2019 in appeal Case No. 544 of 2017did not
discuss anything about the fraudulent action on the part of the
private respondent no. 8 herein, since she was appointed on the
post of Panchayat Teacher without her selection/appointment by
a competent selection body. He further submits that the
appointment of the private respondent no. 8 was made by
committing forgery by the concerned authorities, since the
private respondent no. 8, was having lesser marks/qualification
and the petitioner having higher qualification, was not
considered, despite her objections. He further submits that once
the District Appellate Authority rejected the plea of the private
respondent no. 8 for her appointment, later on, the same
authority allowed her prayer and directed for her appointment. It
is an admitted fact that the petitioner was at Sl. No. 3 having got
560 marks and the private respondent no. 8 was placed at Sl.
No. 6, having 540 marks, therefore, the appointment of the
private respondent no. 8, is in complete violation of the
provisions contained in the Panchayat Teachers Appointment
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
11/34
Rules. He further submits that the petitioner was neither noticed
nor was heard and a finding has been recorded that the
petitioner was noticed, however she did not appear. No chit of
paper has been brought on record to suggest that the notice was
issued and served to the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that once the order of the Tribunal dated 12.04.2010
was set aside vide order dated 11.01.2016 passed in L.P.A. No.
1366 of 2014, then there was no justification for the Tribunal,
directing for compliance of order dated 12.04.2010 passed in
Appeal No. 24 of 2010. He further submits that since the private
respondent no. 8 was pursuing parallel proceeding, therefore,
her joining was stayed, however, later on sanction was given for
payment of salary to her, which is fraudulent act on the part of
the respondent authorities. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the entire action on the part of the
respondent authorities in giving appointment to the respondent
no. 8 is in violation of the order dated 11.01.2016 passed in
L.P.A. No. 1366 of 2014 and even before issuance of
appointment letter to the respondent no. 8, no notices were
issued to the petitioner or any of the candidates in the merit list,
to appear for any counselling.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
12/34
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT NO. 8
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the private respondent no. 8 submits that the process of
appointment was completed in the year 2007. The writ
petitioner had no grievance with the selection process for the
appointment of Panchayat Teacher, therefore, she did not
approach any authority or Forum. She woke up from her
slumber for the first time in 2016 and filed C.W.J.C. No. 13217
of 2016 before this Hon’ble Court with regard to the selection
process which was completed more than seven years ago. The
respondent no. 8 kept on agitating the matter before different
authorities since 2010 and finally succeeded in the year, 2015.
He further submits that the petitioner has got no concern with
her appointment, but has grievance with regard to appointment
of the respondent no. 8. He submits that after her appointment,
the respondent no. 8 was sent for training and has also
completed the Teachers training in the year, 2019. She
subsequently qualified the Teachers Ability Test in the year,
2023 and is working as exclusive Vishisht Shikshak in the State
of Bihar. He submits that pursuant to the advertisement bearing
advertisement no. PR153/2024, the ability test (Teachers Ability
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
13/34
Test-II) was held and after publication of the result, the
respondent no. 8 appeared in counselling. Thereafter, a fresh
appointment letter i.e. provisional appointment letter was issued
on 25.02.2025. Subsequent thereto, her services has been
confirmed as Vishisht Shikshak since 01.03.2005 and she is
working in upgraded Middle School Baruna, Sampatchak,
Patna.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 further
submits that since the respondent no. 8 has been appointed as
Vishisht Shikshak, there is no post of Panchayat Teacher in the
Panchayat in question and on this ground alone, the present writ
petition is fit to be dismissed. He further submits that in a
similar matter, this Hon’ble Court vide its order dated
02.04.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 338 of 2011 (Ram Udgar
Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) in paragraph nos. 28
and 29, has held as follows:-
28. In the present case, admittedly, the
respondent no. 11 was not appointed and
worked as P.S.M. as on 01.07.2006, i.e. at the
time of conversion of P.S.M. as Panchayat
Teacher. Applying the principle laid down by
the Full Bench of this Court, it is difficult to
hold that merely because respondent no. 11
was having higher marks, in the intermediate
examination, and was not appointed/joined as
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
14/34P.S.M., prior to 01.07.2006, he is entitled to
be appointed as Panchayat Teacher on the
basis of his having higher marks in the
intermediate examination after conversion of
P.S.M. as Panchayat Teacher. The Full Bench
decision, in the case of Kalpana Rani (supra),
fully applies in the facts of the present case
and in view of the law laid down thereunder,
it is difficult for this Court to hold that the
respondent no. 11 is entitled to be appointed
as Panchayat Teacher in place of the
petitioner.
29. The respondent no. 11 is not entitled to
claim employment/deemed employment as
P.S.M. or has right to be absorbed in service
as Panchayat Teacher as per Rule 20(iii) of
the 2006 Rules.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 8
further submits that the issue herein is fully covered by the
judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court reported
in 2011 (4) PLJR 297 (Smt. Renu Kumari Panday vs. the State
of Bihar) wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has held has
follows:-
While dealing with the above C.W.J.C. No.
10113 of 2007 the learned single Judge felt
that it was unfair to absorb the Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra employed as on 1st July 2006 as
Panchayat Shiksha under the Rules as there
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
15/34may be some persons who may not have
found the terms and conditions of the
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra attractive and may
not have applied for employment as Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra. Had they been told that
ultimately they would be absorbed in
permanent service as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra
they might have opted for employment as
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. In the opinion of the
learned single Judge, Clause (iii) of Rule 20 of
the Rules is arbitrary, discriminatory and ultra
vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The learned single Judge was also concerned
about the pending claims of the aggrieved
persons who were not selected as Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra or were not continued as
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Whether such
persons, if their grievance were found to be
genuine, can be granted relief of deemed
employment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and
consequent absorption in the cadre of
Panchayat Shikshak under the Rules.
In our opinion, the issue referred to us is
imaginary and does not arise in any of the
matters. Neither the aforesaid Clause (iii) is
under challenge before us in any of the above
matters nor there is one case before us where
the writ petitioner has claimed that he/she did
not apply for employment as Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra as the terms and conditions of
the said employment were not attractive and
that had he/she known about ultimate
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
16/34absorption in permanent service as Panchayat
Shikshak he/she would have opted for
employment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra.
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.
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.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
17/34cannot be deemed to have been appointed as
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra; nor can he/she be
deemed to have been employed as Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra as on 1st July 2006; nor can
such person be deemed to have been absorbed
in service as Panchayat Shikshak under the
Rules.
We may also note here that though the State
Government framed a complete scheme for
employment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra at
Gram Panchayat level in furtherance of its
goal of “Education for All”, in none of the
aforesaid Resolutions the Government had
provided for an adjudicatory machinery. In
other words, the State Government did not
make any provision for redressal of grievance
in respect of selection and employment of
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra or their
reemployment after the expiry of the
contractual period. On perusal of the records
of the above writ petitions, we find that in
absence of such machinery, the aggrieved
persons approached the authority whom such
persons considered to be the competent/the
convenient authority. In our opinion, in
absence of powers expressly conferred upon
any such authority the reports or the orders
made by such authority are of no
consequence. No relief can be granted on the
basis of the finding recorded by such
authority. We may also point out that
Elementary Teachers Appellate Authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
18/34constituted under Rule 18 of the Rules, as
amended by Bihar Panchayat Elementary
Teacher (Employment and Service
Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2008 is
empowered to entertain, hear and decide the
appeals arising out of the employment of
elementary teachers under the Rules. The said
appellate authority has no jurisdiction to
entertain, hear or decide the disputes relating
to the employment of Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra under the then prevalent Resolutions,
Circulars, Orders, Instructions.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 8
further submits that the order passed by the State Appellate
Authority in case of the petitioner was passed on 15.07.2019
and the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in 2022 i.e.
after about three years of the passing of the order and moreover,
the respondent no. 8 is working as a Teacher pursuant to her
appointment on 08.09.2015.
12. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of
State-respondents wherein it has been stated that the matter
relates to appointment made in the year 2006, as per 2006 Rules
and at that relevant time the Department of Education had got
no concern/jurisdiction to interfere in the same. As such the
Panchayat Secretary was the competent authority to make any
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
19/34reply to the writ petition. It has further been stated in the counter
affidavit that since despite notices to the petitioner and others,
they did not choose to appear before the authority concerned or
the Panchayat Secretary, therefore, the respondent no. 8,
although below in the merit list, has been selected and appointed
as a Panchayat Teacher and is working since, 2015.
CONSIDERATION
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the records, it appears that for
appointment of Panchayat Teacher in the Gram Panchayat Raj,
Chipura under the Sampatchak Block of Patna District, process
was initiated and counselling was held on 10.11.2007. List of
altogether 18 candidates was published/prepared, who
participated in the counselling. The name of the petitioner was
at Sl. No. 3 in the merit list, whereas the name of the respondent
no. 8 was at Sl. No. 6 in the said merit list. One Nitu Kumari
was finally selected. The respondent no. 8 assailed the same by
filing a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court bearing C.W.J.C.
No. 14884 of 2009. The writ petition was disposed of vide order
dated 09.02.2010 with a direction to the respondent no. 8 to file
an appeal before the District Teachers Employment Appellate
Tribunal, Patna. The respondent no. 8 filed her appeal, which
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
20/34
was numbered as Case No. 24 of 2010 before the District
Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Patna. The Tribunal
vide its order dated 12.04.2010 proceeded to cancel the entire
selection of Chipura Panchayat and directed for initiation of
fresh selection process. Since no notices were issued to anyone,
therefore, one Shila Kumari filed C.W.J.C. No. 9764 of 2010
before this Hon’ble Court, with a prayer to set aside the order
dated 12.04.2010 passed in Case No. 24 of 2010. The writ
petition was disposed of/allowed vide order dated 28.02.2011
and the order of the Tribunal dated 12.04.2010, so far it related
to Shila Kumari, was set aside and the matter was remitted back
for reconsideration of the matter with regard to Shila Kumari.
The respondent no. 8 also filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.
No. 15708 of 2010 for compliance of order dated 12.04.2010
passed by the Tribunal, whereby a direction was issued to
initiate selection process afresh. The writ petition was disposed
of vide order dated 20.11.2014 with a liberty to approach the
appellate authority for seeking implementation of the said order
dated 12.04.2010. One Nitu Sinha who was initially selected,
pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2006, also filed a writ
petition before this Hon’ble Court, by which she assailed the
order dated 12.04.2010 passed by the Tribunal in Case No. 24 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
21/34
2010. The said writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6659 of 2011
filed by Nitu Sinha was disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2017
with a direction to file her appeal before the State Appellate
Authority. Nitu Sinha did not file any appeal before the
appellate authority. Subsequently, one Puja Kumari filed
C.W.J.C. no. 1324 of 2014 before this Hon’ble Court, assailing
the order dated 12.04.2010 passed by the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Tribunal, Patna in Case No. 24 of 2010.
The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated
16.05.2014. Being aggrieved with the order dated 16.05.2014,
Puja Kumari filed Letters Patent Appeal bearing L.P.A. No.
1366 of 2014. The appeal preferred by her was allowed vide
order dated 11.01.2016 whereby the Hon’ble Division Bench
proceeded to set aside the order dated 12.04.2010 passed by the
District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Patna in Case
No. 24 of 2010. In the meantime, the respondent no. 8 herein
filed appeal Case No. 80 of 2014 before the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Tribunal, in terms of the liberty given to
her vide order dated 21.01.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15708
of 2010. The appeal filed by the respondent no. 8 was disposed
of vide order dated 05.06.2015 with a direction to the Panchayat
Secretary to take appropriate action within thirty days from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
22/34
date of passing of the order with respect to the respondent no. 8.
In terms of the directions given by the Tribunal on 05.06.2015,
the respondent no. 8 was appointed on 08.09.2015 and she gave
her joining on 10.09.2015. The petitioner, who did not take any
action after her non-selection in 2007, filed a writ petition
bearing C.W.J.C. No. 13217 of 2016 before this Hon’ble Court,
whereby she assailed the order dated 05.06.2015 passed in
appeal Case No. 80 of 2014, which resulted in appointment of
the respondent no. 8. The writ petition filed by the petitioner
was disposed of vide order dated 22.08.2017 with a liberty to
her to file her appeal before the State Appellate Authority. The
petitioner filed an appeal bearing appeal Case No. 544 of 2017
before the State Appellate Authority, whereby she assailed the
order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Tribunal in appeal Case No. 80 of 2014.
The State Appellate Authority vide its order dated 15.07.2019
proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner. The
petitioner again slept over her rights and all of a sudden woke
up from her slumber and filed the present writ petition on
27.07.2022 i.e. almost three years after dismissal of her appeal
bearing appeal Case No. 544 of 2017 by the State Appellate
Authority. It appears from the record that the respondent no. 8,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
23/34
after giving her joining on 10.09.2015 is performing her duties
and later on was sent for training, which she completed in the
year 2019. She qualified the Teachers Ability Test in the year
2023 and is at present working as Exclusive Vishisht Shikshak
in the State of Bihar. Subsequently, she appeared and cleared the
Teachers Ability Test-II and fresh appointment letter was issued
to her on 25.02.2025. Her services as Vishisht Shikshak has
been confirmed w.e.f. 01.03.2025 and she is working in the
upgraded Middle School, Baruna, Sampatchak, Patna. The
petitioner, who did not had any grievance with the selection
process in 2006-2007, all of a sudden woke up from slumber in
2016 and filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court. In
terms of the liberty given by this Hon’ble Court, she filed an
appeal before the State Appellate Authority bearing appeal Case
No. 544 of 2017. Her appeal was dismissed on 15.07.2019 and
again she slept over her rights. All of a sudden she again woke
up from slumber after three years and filed the present writ
petition, assailing the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the
State Appellate Authority. The law with regard to delay and
laches and waiver and acquiescence is very much clear.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case
reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 (State of Uttar Pradesh and
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
24/34
Others versus Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors) in paragraph
nos. 20, 21, 22.2 and 23 has held as follows:-
“20. The Court also quoted the following
passage from Halsbury’s Laws of England
(para 911, p. 395) : (Jaswant Singh case [U.P.
Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC
464 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 500] , SCC pp.
470-71, para 12)
“12. … ‘In determining whether there has
been such delay as to amount to laches, the
chief points to be considered are:
(i) acquiescence on the claimant’s part; and
(ii) any change of position that has occurred
on the defendant’s part.
Acquiescence in this sense does not mean
standing by while the violation of a right is in
progress, but assent after the violation has
been completed and the claimant has become
aware of it. It is unjust to give the claimant a
remedy where, by his conduct, he has done
that which might fairly be regarded as
equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by his
conduct and neglect, though not waiving the
remedy, he has put the other party in a
position in which it would not be reasonable
to place him if the remedy were afterwards to
be asserted. In such cases lapse of time and
delay are most material. Upon these
considerations rests the doctrine of laches.'”
21. Holding that the respondents had also
acquiesced in accepting the retirements, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
25/34appeal of U.P. Jal Nigam was allowed with
the following reasons : (Jaswant Singh case
[U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11
SCC 464 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 500] , SCC
p. 471, para 13)
“13. In view of the statement of law as
summarised above, the respondents are guilty
since the respondents have acquiesced in
accepting the retirement and did not
challenge the same in time. If they would
have been vigilant enough, they could have
filed writ petitions as others did in the matter.
Therefore, whenever it appears that the
claimants lost time or whiled it away and did
not rise to the occasion in time for filing the
writ petitions, then in such cases, the court
should be very slow in granting the relief to
the incumbent. Secondly it has also to be
taken into consideration the question of
acquiescence or waiver on the part of the
incumbent whether other parties are going to
be prejudiced if the relief is granted. In the
present case, if the respondents would have
challenged their retirement being violative of
the provisions of the Act, perhaps the Nigam
could have taken appropriate steps to raise
funds so as to meet the liability but by not
asserting their rights the respondents have
allowed time to pass and after a lapse of
couple of years, they have filed writ petitions
claiming the benefit for two years. That will
definitely require the Nigam to raise funds
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
26/34which is going to have serious financial
repercussions on the financial management
of the Nigam. Why should the court come to
the rescue of such persons when they
themselves are guilty of waiver and
acquiescence?”
22.2. However, this principle is subject to
well recognised exceptions in the form of
laches and delays as well as acquiescence.
Those persons who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced
into the same and woke up after long delay
only because of the reason that their
counterparts who had approached the court
earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then
such employees cannot claim that the benefit
of the judgment rendered in the case of
similarly situated persons be extended to
them. They would be treated as fence-sitters
and laches and delays, and/or the
acquiescence, would be a valid ground to
dismiss their claim.
23. Viewed from this angle, in the present
case, we find that the selection process took
place in the year 1986. Appointment orders
were issued in the year 1987, but were also
cancelled vide orders dated 22-6-1987. The
respondents before us did not challenge these
cancellation orders till the year 1996 i.e. for a
period of 9 years. It means that they had
accepted the cancellation of their
appointments. They woke up in the year 1996
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
27/34
only after finding that some other persons
whose appointment orders were also
cancelled got the relief. By that time, nine
years had passed. The earlier judgment had
granted the relief to the parties before the
Court. It would also be pertinent to highlight
that these respondents have not joined
service nor working like the employees who
succeeded in earlier case before the Tribunal.
As of today, 27 years have passed after the
issuance of cancellation orders. Therefore,
not only was there unexplained delay and
laches in filing the claim petition after a
period of 9 years, it would be totally unjust to
direct the appellants to give them
appointment as of today i.e. after a period of
27 years when most of these respondents
would be almost 50 years of age or above.”
15. Similarly this Court vide its order dated
24.04.2026 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6052 of 2026 (Manoj
Kumar versus the State of Bihar and Others), in paragraph no.
7 & 8 has held as follows:-
“7. Similarly a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide oral judgment dated 25.02.2020,
passed in C.W.J.C. No.2276 of 2020 (Arun
Kumar Mehta vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors.), in paragraph nos. 4 to 8 held as
follows:
“4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
28/34parties and gone through the materials on
record. Apparently, there is a delay of about
07 years in filing the present writ petition,
even if the appellate order dated 15.12.2012
is taken into account, for which no plausible
explanation whatsoever has been furnished,
hence the writ petition is fit to be dismissed
on the ground of principles of delay and
laches, alone.
5. It is a well settled principle of law that
stale claims should not be adjudicated by the
writ courts. In this connection, reference be
had to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 602
(State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. R.K.
Zalpuri & Others), paragraph nos. 26 to 28
whereof are reproduced herein below:-
“26. In the case at hand, the employee was
dismissed from service in the year 1999, but
he chose not to avail any departmental
remedy. He woke up from his slumber to
knock at the doors of the High Court after a
lapse of five years. The staleness of the claim
remained stale and it could not have been
allowed to rise like a phoenix by the writ
court.
27. The grievance agitated by the respondent
did not deserve to be addressed on merits, for
doctrine of delay and laches had already
visited his claim like the chill of death which
does not spare anyone even the one who
fosters the idea and nurtures the attitude that
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
29/34he can sleep to avoid death and eventually
proclaim “deo gratias” – ‘thanks to God’.
28. Another aspect needs to be stated. A writ
court while deciding a writ petition is
required to remain alive to the nature of the
claim and the unexplained delay on the part
of the writ petitioner. Stale claims are not to
be adjudicated unless non-interference would
cause grave injustice. The present case,
needless to emphasise, did not justify
adjudication. It deserved to be thrown
overboard at the very threshold, for the writ
petitioner had accepted the order of dismissal
for half a decade and cultivated the feeling
that he could freeze time and forever remain
in the realm of constant present.”
6. In a judgment reported in 1986(4) SCC
566 (State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Nandlal
Jaiswal & Ors.), the Hon’ble Apex Court
held as follows:-
“That the High Court in exercise of its
discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy
and the indolent or the acquiescent and the
lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the
part of the petitioner, the Court may decline
to intervene and grant relief inasmuch as
entertaining such a belated claim would have
not only the effect of inflicting hardship and
inconvenience but also injustice on third
parties and creation of third party rights
during the interregnum period, is a matter to
be considered while exercising discretionary
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
30/34writ jurisdiction.”
7. In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali
Babu, it has been ruled thus:
“Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches
should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ
court is required to weigh the explanation
offered and the acceptability of the same. The
court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction.
As a constitutional court it has a duty to
protect the rights of the citizens but
simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the
primary principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reason, approaches
the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the
court would be under legal obligation to
scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage
should be entertained or not. Be it noted,
delay comes in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may not be
fatal but in most circumstances inordinate
delay would only invite disaster for the
litigant who knocks at the doors of the court.
Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the
part of a litigant – a litigant who has
forgotten the basic norms, namely,
“procrastination is the greatest thief of time”
and second, law does not permit one to sleep
and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in
hazard and causes injury to the lis”.
Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. Through its
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
31/34
Chairman & Managing Director & Anr Vs.
K. Thangappan and Anr would be apposite:-
“Delay or laches is one of the factors which
is to be borne in mind by the High Court
when they exercise their discretionary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In an appropriate case the High Court may
refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if
there is such negligence or omission on the
part of the applicant to assert his right as
taken in conjunction with the lapse of time
and other circumstances, causes prejudice to
the opposite party”. It was, therefore,
contended that the appellant itself had agreed
with respondent 2 to pay bonus for 1953,
1954, 1955 and 1956 according to the terms
of the bonus agreement. It was also pointed
out that the appellant had not pressed its
objection with regard to jurisdiction before
the labour court or the industrial court. But it
appears that the decision of this Court in
Prakash Cotton Mills case 1962 (1) LLJ 108]
(vide supra) was given on February 16, 1961
after the decision of K. K. Desai, J., on July
1, 1960 and before the decision of the Letters
Patent Bench on February 6, 1962. In the
circumstances of this case, we do not
consider that there is such acquiescence on
the part of the appellant as to disentitle it to a
grant of writ under Art. 226 of the
Constitution. It is true that the issue of a writ
certiorari is largely a matter of sound
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
32/34discretion. It is also true that the writ will not
be granted if there is such negligence or
omission on the part of the applicant to assert
his right as, taken in conjunction with the
lapse of time and other circumstance, cause
prejudice to the adverse party. The principle
is to a great extent, though not identical with,
similar to the exercise of discretion in the
Court of Chancery. The principle has been
clearly stated by Sri Barnes Peacock in
Lindsay Petroleum Company v. Prosper
Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewell and
John Kemp [Law Reports 5 P.C., 221 at
239] as follows:”
Now the doctrine of laches in courts of
equity is not an arbitrary or a technical
doctrine. Where it would be practically
unjust to give a remedy, either because the
party has, by his conduct, done that which
might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a
waiver of it, or where by his conduct and
neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving
that remedy, yet put the other party in a
situation in which it would not be reasonable
to place him if the remedy were afterwards to
be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of
time and delay are most material. But in
every case, if an argument against relief,
which otherwise would be just, is founded
upon mere delay, that delay of course not
amounting to a bar by any statute of
limitation, the validity of that defence must
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
33/34
be tried upon principles substantially
equitable. Two circumstances, always
important in such cases, are the length of the
delay and the nature of the acts done during
the interval, which might affect either party
and cause a balance of justice or injustice in
taking the one course or the other, so far as
relates to the remedy.”
8. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, considering the
submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties as also taking into account the law
enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
cases referred to hereinabove, regarding the
principles of delay and laches, this Court
finds that as far as the present case is
concerned, no plausible explanation has been
furnished by the petitioner so as to
convincingly explain the delay in question of
about 07 years in approaching this Court,
hence the present writ petition is fit to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed."
16. Considering the settled proposition that stale
claims are generally not adjudicated by courts, unless there is a
clear and valid reason for long delay. In the present case, the
petitioner did not raise any grievance for almost nine years,
thereafter, approached this Hon’ble Court in 2016 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2022 dt.03-08-2026
34/34
subsequently filed her appeal before the State Appellate
Authority, which was dismissed in 2019. She again slept over
her rights and woke up from her slumber in 2022 i.e. after delay
of three years and filed the present writ petition. The petitioner
cannot be permitted to unsettle a settled thing, which has
already attained finality in 2015.
17. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in
the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is
dismissed.
18. Pending applications, if any shall also stand
dismissed.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
vinita/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 13.05.2026 Uploading Date 03-08-2026 Transmission Date NA
