Case Background
The case arises from appointments made in 2005 to the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in Gram Panchayat Raj, Katihar, district Katihar.
The petitioner and respondent no.11 both applied for this post. After counselling, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 11.08.2005 and joined her duties on 18.08.2005 at Primary School, Dhusmar in Block Katihar. Her appointment letter and joining letter were produced before the Court.
In 2006, the State framed the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 with effect from 01.07.2006. Under these Rules, the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was abolished. All persons already working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra were absorbed as Panchayat Teachers.
After these changes, the petitioner continued to work first as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra till 30.06.2006 and then as Panchayat Teacher from 01.07.2006 onwards, without any disturbance for more than seven years.
In 2013, respondent no.11 filed Appeal Case No.71 of 2013 before the District Appellate Authority, Katihar. She challenged the petitioner’s appointment and claimed that she herself should have been appointed.
On 04.08.2014, by memo no.319, the Presiding Officer, District Appellate Authority, Katihar allowed the appeal. He set aside the petitioner’s appointment and directed that respondent no.11 be appointed as Panchayat Teacher.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction, seeking to quash the order of the District Appellate Authority.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, heard the petitioner, the State of Bihar and respondent no.11.
The petitioner’s side argued that there was no dispute that she had been duly appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 11.08.2005 after due process. She had joined on 18.08.2005 and was continuously working.
Her counsel pointed out that when the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 came into force on 01.07.2006, the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was abolished. Everyone who was actually working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on that date was absorbed as Panchayat Teacher.
Therefore, on 01.07.2006 it was the petitioner who was holding the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. On that basis, she was validly absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. Her counsel relied on the Division Bench judgment in Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey vs. State of Bihar & others, reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 297 (DB), especially paragraph 17, and on the Full Bench judgment in Kalpana Rani vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2014 (2) PLJR 665 (FB).
It was argued that these decisions made it clear that only those who were actually working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 01.07.2006 had a right to absorption. People who were never appointed or never working on that date could not claim either appointment or deemed appointment on the abolished post. On this basis, the petitioner contended that the District Appellate Authority’s order went directly against the law laid down by the Patna High Court Full Bench and was illegal.
On the other hand, respondent no.11’s counsel argued that both she and the petitioner had applied for the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in 2005. The marks obtained by both were the same and they belonged to the same category.
However, according to respondent no.11, because there was some deficiency in her application, her name was not included in the merit list. As a result, she was not appointed, while the petitioner was appointed. It was alleged that there was illegality in the process, due to which the respondent no.11 lost her rightful appointment.
Respondent no.11 claimed that she kept raising the issue. She filed representations before the Block Development Officer and others and was given repeated assurances that the matter would be considered. Finally, in 2013, she filed Appeal Case No.71 of 2013 before the District Appellate Authority.
Her case was that she had been illegally left out though she was selected, and therefore she should be treated as having been appointed as Panchayat Shikshak and then deemed to be Panchayat Teacher from 01.07.2006. Her counsel supported the order of the District Appellate Authority and relied on the judgment of the Patna High Court in Raushan Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
The State of Bihar’s counsel also supported the order of the District Appellate Authority and requested dismissal of the writ petition.
After hearing all sides, the Patna High Court examined the material on record. The Court found certain crucial facts.
First, both the petitioner and respondent no.11 had applied for the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in 2005. Their marks were the same and they were in the same category. However, due to defects in the application of respondent no.11, she was not selected.
The Court noted that in the first meeting held on 25.04.2005, no appointment letters were issued. Later, in the meeting of 11.08.2005, the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra. She then joined on 18.08.2005 at Primary School, Dhusmar.
The appointment letter dated 11.08.2005 and joining letter dated 18.08.2005 were on the record as Annexure-1 series and confirmed that the petitioner had in fact been appointed and joined well before the Rules of 2006 came into effect.
The Court next considered the impact of the 2006 Rules. It found that after the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 came into force, the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was abolished. Those who were already working on that post were absorbed as Panchayat Teachers.
Therefore, the petitioner, who had been validly working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, was absorbed and continued as Panchayat Teacher. She worked in this capacity from 01.07.2006 till the date of the impugned order dated 04.08.2014, a period of more than seven years without interruption.
The Court then examined the timing of the appeal filed by respondent no.11. The appeal was filed only in 2013, long after the petitioner’s appointment in 2005 and absorption in 2006. The Court held that such a belated challenge suffered from serious delay and laches.
In the Court’s opinion, this delay alone was sufficient to reject the appeal. The District Appellate Authority had entertained the appeal without any reasonable explanation for this long delay, which, according to the High Court, was not justified.
The Court also examined the nature of the right claimed by respondent no.11. It emphasised that the dispute originated from the appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in 2005 and the resulting absorption as Panchayat Teacher under the 2006 Rules.
The Court referred to the earlier decisions in Renu Kumari Pandey and Kalpana Rani. In Renu Kumari Pandey, the Court had held that since none of the petitioners in that case were employed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 01.07.2006, they had no right to employment, deemed employment, or absorption as Panchayat Shikshak by applying Rule 20(iii) of the 2006 Rules.
This view was affirmed by the Full Bench in Kalpana Rani. The Full Bench clearly stated that once the entire provision for Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was repealed, there could be no appointment on the abolished post.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court held that respondent no.11, who was never appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and was not working in that capacity on 01.07.2006, could not be directed to be appointed as Panchayat Teacher.
The Court noted that the District Appellate Authority, by directing her appointment as Panchayat Teacher in 2014, in effect treated her as if she had been appointed on an abolished post and then absorbed. This was contrary to the binding precedents of the Division Bench and Full Bench.
In view of these findings, the Court concluded that the order of the District Appellate Authority contained in memo no.319 dated 04.08.2014 in Appeal Case No.71 of 2013 was unsustainable in law.
The Patna High Court therefore set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ application. As a result, the petitioner’s appointment as Panchayat Teacher stands restored and protected.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for many teachers appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra before 2006 and later absorbed as Panchayat Teachers.
First, it shows that appointments cannot be disturbed lightly after many years. If someone wants to challenge a selection, they must do so within a reasonable time. Long silence followed by an appeal may be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
Second, the decision reinforces that only those actually working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 01.07.2006 could be absorbed under the 2006 Rules. Persons who were never appointed to that post cannot claim a right to be treated as if they had been appointed or absorbed.
Third, it confirms that District Appellate Authorities must follow binding High Court judgments. They cannot direct appointment on an abolished post or treat someone as deemed appointed when the law does not permit it.
For village-level teachers in Bihar, this ruling gives some assurance that long-settled appointments, especially those followed by absorption as per the Rules, will not be easily overturned after many years on the basis of old disputes.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether an appeal filed in 2013 challenging a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra appointment made in 2005 and subsequent absorption as Panchayat Teacher in 2006 could be entertained and used to cancel the appointment.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the appeal suffered from delay and laches and should have been dismissed by the District Appellate Authority. - Issue: Whether respondent no.11, who was never appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and was not working on that post on 01.07.2006, could be directed to be appointed as Panchayat Teacher by treating her as deemed appointed.
Answer: No. Relying on Renu Kumari Pandey and Kalpana Rani, the Court held that no appointment or deemed appointment can be made on the abolished post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, and such a person has no right to absorption as Panchayat Teacher. - Issue: Whether the District Appellate Authority’s order directing cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment and appointment of respondent no.11 as Panchayat Teacher was legally sustainable.
Answer: No. The order was held to be contrary to binding High Court precedents and was set aside.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey vs. The State of Bihar & others, 2011 (4) PLJR 297 (DB).
- Kalpana Rani vs. State of Bihar, 2014 (2) PLJR 665 (FB).
- Reference was made by respondent no.11 to Raushan Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors., but the judgment does not show reliance placed by the Court on this case for its decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14952 of 2014
Case Title: Namita Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Citation: 2024 (1) PLJR 815
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
- For the respondents: Mr. S.A. Alam, Advocate
Nature of the case: Writ petition challenging an order of the District Appellate Authority, Katihar, relating to appointment and absorption to the post of Panchayat Teacher.
Link to judgment: Click here to read the full Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
