Patna High Court
Mamta Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 5 August, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.808 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20531 of 2021
======================================================
Mamta Kumari Daughter of Ram Bahadur Sah and Wife of Manish Kumar
Gupta Resident of Village and Post- Dharhara, P.S.- Banmankhi, District-
Purnea.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chair Person (A), State Appellate Authority, Education Department,
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea.
6. The District Magistrate, Purnea.
7. The Presiding Officer, District Appellate Authority, Purnea.
8. The District Programme Officer, Establishment, Purnea.
9. The Block Development Officer, Banmankhi, District- Purnea.
10. The Block Education Officer, Banmankhi, District- Purnea.
11. The Mukhiya Grampanchayat Raj Dharhara, P.S. and Block- Banmankhi,
District- Purnea.
12. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj, Dharhara, P.S. and Block-
Banmankhi, District- Purnea.
13. Kavita Kumari, Daughter of Kapil Deo Poddar and Wife of Sanjay Kumar
Resident of Village and P.O.- Dharahara, P.S.- Banmankhi, District- Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate
Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Additional Advocate General 13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 05-08-2025
Patna High Court L.P.A No.808 of 2024 dt. 05-08-2025
2/5
The present intra court appeal has been filed
against the judgment dated 16.07.2024, passed by the learned
Single Judge in CWJC No. 20531 of 2021, whereby the writ
petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed.
The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition
held that the appellant had not appeared in the counselling
process for the appointment of Panchayat Teachers, and
therefore, he could not claim appointment to the post of
Panchayat Teacher.
2. As per the facts on the record, the appellant had
applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher at Primary School,
Mandal Tola in Dharahara Gram Panchayat, Block-
Banmankhi, Disrtrict- Purnea. The counselling for the said
post was held on 28.02.2009. The appellant had not appeared
in the counselling, however, she claims that she was not
allowed to appear for the counselling, and was returned by the
concerned authorities, who informed her that the counselling
was only for the trained candidates.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that objections were filed before the Block Development
Officer (for brevity "B.D.O.") and thereafter before the
District Appellate Authority. When the grievance of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.808 of 2024 dt. 05-08-2025
3/5
appellant before the District Appellate Authority was rejected,
she approached the State Appellate Authority, which
remanded the matter back to the District Appellate Authority.
Upon remand, the District Appellate Authority allowed the
claim of the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.
13 filed an appeal before the State Appellate Authority, which
was disposed of by setting aside the appointment of both the
appellant and the respondent No. 13 herein.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that the claim of the appellant was rejected only on
the ground that she had approached the wrong forum, i.e., the
B.D.O. and approached the District Appellate Authority by
filing appeal, after a period of two years, in 2011.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents-State
submitted that the ground for rejection of the claim of the
appellant and the respondent No.13 was that they were never
part of the original counselling, which was held on
28.02.2009
. The name of the appellant was not there in the
counselling register. The learned counsel also relied on the
observations made by the learned Single Judge where the
Court had observed:-
"......As far as, the petitioner, namely.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.808 of 2024 dt. 05-08-2025
Mamta Kumari, is concerned she has admitted that
she was not present in counselling. But she has
contended that she had gone for counselling but
was returned....." (Paragraph 9 of the impugned
judgment).
6. The learned counsel for the respondents-State
further submitted that the representation, which was made
before the B.D.O., was unsigned and unstamped (Annexure-3
of the writ petition), and such statement was also denied by
the B.D.O. in Paragraph No. 7 of the counter affidavit.
7. The appellant did not prefer any appeal before the
statutory forum prior to 2011. She has claimed that an
objection was made before the B.D.O., but there is no valid
representation to that effect. This delay of two years in filing
the appeal before the District Appellate Authority has not been
explained properly by the appellant. Thus, no sufficient
explanation has been provided inasmuch as the condonation
of delay.
8. Additionally, the claim of the appellant that she
was denied entry into the counselling, is also not supported
with any evidence, and such contention was not made before
the District Appellate Authority.
9. In view of the facts and discussions made above,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.808 of 2024 dt. 05-08-2025
we do not find a valid reason to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge.
10. The appeal stands dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Ramesh Chand Malviya, J: I agree
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anushka/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 29.07.2025
Uploading Date 05.08.2025
Transmission Date
