Case Background
The dispute relates to the selection of Panchayat Teachers for Gram Panchayat Laxmipur, Barharakothi, in Purnea district. According to the judgment, there were ten vacancies in total, with only one post reserved for the Backward Class (BC) category.
After the selection process, a merit list was prepared. One Amit Kumar was selected and appointed, but in the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. Other candidates in the SC category felt aggrieved by this appointment and filed appeals before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Purnea.
Altogether, seven appeals were filed. One of these appeals was by respondent Chandan Kumar Jaiswal. The present petitioner also filed an appeal at that stage. All appeals were decided by a common order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the District Appellate Authority.
In this common order, the District Appellate Authority recorded that in the BC category, two candidates, Ranjan Yadav and Chandan Kumar Jaiswal, had appeared for counselling. However, their original documents were not accepted. It also found that Amit Kumar, being the son of the Panchayat Secretary, had been given undue advantage in the selection process.
On this basis, the District Appellate Authority set aside the selection of Amit Kumar. One of the unsuccessful appellants then approached the Patna High Court by filing CWJC No. 5485 of 2012. In that writ case, the High Court remanded the matter to the State Appellate Authority for fresh consideration.
Following the remand, respondent Chandan Kumar Jaiswal filed an appeal before the State Appellate Authority. After considering all aspects, the District Appellate Authority, by order dated 12.09.2012, found him to be the meritorious candidate and directed that he be appointed in place of Amit Kumar whose earlier appointment had already been declared illegal and cancelled. In consequence, Chandan Kumar Jaiswal was appointed as Panchayat Teacher.
The present petitioner did not challenge this 12.09.2012 order or the appointment of Chandan Kumar Jaiswal at that time. He also did not file any appeal against the earlier order dated 14.09.2011 in which no relief had been granted to him.
It was only in 2015 that the petitioner filed a fresh appeal before the District Appellate Authority, claiming that he was more meritorious than respondent Chandan Kumar Jaiswal and that he should be appointed instead. This later case was numbered as Case No. 18 of 2015.
The District Appellate Authority, by Memo No. 204 dated 19.12.2015, rejected the petitioner’s claim. It noted that his claim had not been accepted in the previous proceedings and also that he had not participated in the counselling at all.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the High Court in CWJC No. 2842 of 2016. The High Court did not decide his claim on merits but permitted him to file an appeal before the State Appellate Authority. Acting on this permission, the petitioner went before the State Appellate Authority.
The State Appellate Authority, by order dated 06.07.2021 passed in Appeal No. 352, again rejected the petitioner’s appeal. It recorded findings about his non-participation in counselling and lack of vigilance over his supposed rights.
Challenging both the order dated 06.07.2021 of the State Appellate Authority and the earlier order dated 19.12.2015 of the District Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, CWJC No. 13163 of 2021, before the Patna High Court. He also sought a direction to insert his name in the final merit list and to appoint him on the post of Panchayat Teacher.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, examined the long history of the dispute and the specific reliefs claimed by the petitioner. The key question was whether the petitioner, who had not attended counselling and had been silent for several years, could still demand appointment as Panchayat Teacher on the basis of alleged higher merit.
The Court began by noting that the matter had already gone through several rounds of litigation. Earlier, the District Appellate Authority had passed a common order on 14.09.2011 in seven appeals. In that order, the Authority had found that:
1) In the BC category, only Ranjan Yadav and Chandan Kumar Jaiswal had actually appeared for counselling.
2) Their original documents were initially not accepted.
3) Amit Kumar, son of the Panchayat Secretary, had been favoured and appointed improperly.
Because of these findings, the selection of Amit Kumar was set aside in 2011. After the High Court’s remand in CWJC No. 5485 of 2012, the District Appellate Authority on 12.09.2012 held that among the candidates, Chandan Kumar Jaiswal was the meritorious one and ordered that he be appointed in place of Amit Kumar. This direction was implemented and Chandan Kumar Jaiswal got the job.
The High Court underlined that the petitioner had not challenged either the 14.09.2011 order or the 12.09.2012 order at the appropriate time. He remained silent till 2015, when he approached the District Appellate Authority again through Case No. 18 of 2015, claiming that he was more meritorious than Chandan Kumar Jaiswal.
In the 19.12.2015 order in Case No. 18 of 2015, the District Appellate Authority rejected his request. It specifically observed that the petitioner had not taken part in the counselling process. Without attending counselling, his name could not have been included in the merit list prepared by the employment unit. As a result, his merit could not be compared with those candidates who did turn up for counselling.
When the petitioner later approached the State Appellate Authority, that Authority too recorded that he had not participated in counselling and had slept over his rights until 2015. It held that such a claim made after such long delay, and without participation in counselling, could not be entertained.
Before the High Court, the State, particularly respondent no. 9, reiterated these points in a counter affidavit. It was pointed out once again that:
1) The petitioner never appeared for counselling.
2) Consequently, his name was not in the merit list prepared by the appointing authority.
3) The names of respondent Chandan Kumar Jaiswal and Ranjan Yadav did appear in the merit list because they had attended counselling.
4) Without the petitioner’s presence at counselling, authorities could not assess his merit against those who appeared.
The High Court agreed with these findings. It stressed that the petitioner’s non-participation in counselling had a direct and fatal impact on his claim. The Court held that when a candidate does not appear for counselling, the authorities cannot evaluate or rank him, and consequently he cannot later demand appointment on the basis of his academic merit alone.
The Court also considered the issue of delay and laches. The order of the District Appellate Authority granting no relief to the petitioner was dated 14.09.2011. The petitioner did not challenge that order for several years. He also did not challenge the 12.09.2012 order directing appointment of Chandan Kumar Jaiswal.
Instead, he waited till 2015 to raise his claim again before the District Appellate Authority. This long period of inaction weighed against him. The Court noted that he was “not vigilant about his rights” and had remained silent till 2015. By the time he came to court, several years had passed and the situation had substantially changed, including the fact that another candidate had already been appointed.
Against this background, the High Court held that it was not possible, at this late stage, to assess the petitioner’s merit in comparison with that of respondent Chandan Kumar Jaiswal. Since the petitioner’s name did not appear in the original merit list due to his absence at counselling, the Court had no material before it to make such a comparison.
The Court then laid down a clear principle flowing from these facts: even if a candidate might have higher academic merit on paper, if he fails to appear for counselling, he cannot claim any right to be considered for appointment over those who did attend. According to the Court, non-participation in counselling is “fatal” to such claims, and the candidate’s claim is treated as abandoned.
Applying this principle to the case at hand, the Court concluded that there was no illegality in the orders passed by the District Appellate Authority on 19.12.2015 and by the State Appellate Authority on 06.07.2021. Both authorities had rightly refused to interfere with the appointment already granted to respondent Chandan Kumar Jaiswal.
Therefore, the High Court held that the view taken by the State Appellate Authority did not warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was found to be devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for candidates in government recruitment, especially in Bihar’s Panchayat Teacher appointments. It makes clear that just having higher academic marks is not enough.
If a candidate does not attend counselling, his or her claim to the post can be treated as abandoned. Courts are unlikely to disturb appointments made in favour of candidates who did participate in counselling, particularly after several years have passed.
The decision also underlines that people must be vigilant about their rights. If an order goes against a candidate and he does not challenge it within a reasonable time, he may lose the chance forever. Late challenges after many years, when someone else is already working on the post, are not favoured.
For villagers and job‑seekers, the message is simple: always appear for counselling when called, and if you feel wronged, challenge the decision promptly before the proper forum. Waiting for years and then going to court is unlikely to succeed.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a candidate who did not attend counselling later claim appointment as Panchayat Teacher on the ground that he is more meritorious than the selected candidate?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that non‑participation in counselling is fatal. A candidate who skips counselling cannot demand consideration for appointment over those who appeared, even if he may have higher academic marks. - Issue: Whether the High Court should interfere with the orders of the District and State Appellate Authorities passed several years earlier in a teacher appointment dispute?
Answer: No. The Court found no illegality in the authorities’ findings that the petitioner did not participate in counselling and had approached them after long delay. Therefore, their orders required no interference and the writ petition was dismissed.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not mention or rely on any specific earlier decided case by name or citation.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13163 of 2021
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022(3) PLJR 104
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Date of Judgment: 27.04.2022
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Advocate
- For the respondents: Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, GP-20
Nature of the Case: Writ petition challenging orders of District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Purnea, and State Appellate Authority in relation to appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher.
Impugned Orders:
- Order dated 06.07.2021 in Appeal No. 352 passed by the Chairperson (Judicial), State Appellate Authority, Patna
- Order contained in Memo No. 204 dated 19.12.2015 passed in Case No. 18 of 2015 by the Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Purnea
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
