[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Mamta Kumari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 15 December, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Sinha
Bench: Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10692 of 2017
======================================================
Mamta Kumari Daughter of Sri Shyam Nandan Singh Resident of Village-
Bahuara Patti, Post Office- Nagra, P.S.- Marhawrah, District- Saran. At
Present working as a Panchayat Teacher in Government Primary School,
Semal Sarai, Block- Marhawrah, District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Saran.
4. The District Education Officer, Saran.
5. The District Programme OfficerEstablishment, Saran.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Marhawrah, District- Saran.
7. The Block Development Officer, Block- Marhawrah, District- Saran.
8. The Block Education Officer, Marhawrah, District - Saran.
9. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Bahuara, Block Marhawrah, District-
Saran.
10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bahuara, Block- Marhawrah,
District -Saran.
11. The Presiding Officer, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority,
Saran.
12. Shilpi Daughter of Vinod Kumar Resident of Village- Bahuara Patti, Nagra,
Block- Marhawrah, District- Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Subhash Chandra Mishra- Sc16
Mr. Abhinay Raj, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 15-12-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10692 of 2017 dt.15-12-2025
2/12
2. The present writ application has been filed with a
prayer for grant of the following reliefs:
(i) I. For issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the order
dated 14.07.2017 passed in Appeal
No. 56/2017 by the Chairperson of
the learned State Appellate Authority,
Patna filed by the petitioner, by
which the learned State Appellate
Authority, Patna has been pleased to
disallow the said appeal without
appreciating the entire facts of the
present case, and also for quashing
the order dated 28.02.2017 passed in
Appeal Case No. 33/2016 by the
learned Presiding Officer, i.e.
District Teachers Employment
Appellate Authority, Saran of the
Appellate Authority filed by Shilpi,
Daughter of Vinod Kumar, Resident
of village-Bahuarapatti, Nagra,
Marhawrah, District- Saran
(Applicant Vs. Mukhiya/Panchayat
Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj
Bahuara Patti & Mamta Kumari) by
which he has passed the order on
28.02.2017
mentioning therein that
Appeal No. 33/2016 filed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.10692 of 2017 dt.15-12-2025
applicant, Shilpi Kumari is being
accepted and Selection Committee
has been directed to send a
compliance report of the order of the
Block Development Officer,
Marhawrah dated 13.09.2008 within
a week without appreciating the fact
that since 25.08.2008 the Block
Development Officer cannot pass the
order in the matter of Panchayat
Teacher.
II. For issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding/directing the
respondent authorities concerned to
allow the petitioner to continue as
Panchayat Teacher in Government
Primary School Semal Sarai, Block-
Marhawrah, District-Saran, as she
has been selected by following
procedure in 2007, she is continuing
since 23.02.2007, on the basis of the
facts and circumstances as well as
continuance for more than 10 years
she may kindly be allowed to be
continued taking into the age and
experience of teaching in the school.
III. For issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of
prohibition by restraining the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10692 of 2017 dt.15-12-2025
respondent authorities concerned to
not make hindrance in proper
functioning of the petitioner as a
Panchayat Teacher in Govt. Primary
School Semal Sarai, Block-
Marhawarah, District-Saran, as she
is continuing as Panchayat Teacher
till date and she has passed the
Teachers Efficiency Test also and
also for restraining the respondent
authorities concerned from
implementation of the order dated
14.07.2017, passed in Appeal No.
56/2017 by the Chairperson of the
learned State Appellate Authority
and order dated 28.02.2017 passed
in Appeal Case No. 33/2016 by the
learned Member, District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority,
Saran at Chhapra.
IV. For issuance of any
other appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions for
which the writ petitioner will be
found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
FACTS
3. The case of the petitioners inter alia is as follows:
4. The petitioner, Mamta Kumari, claims that she
Patna High Court CWJC No.10692 of 2017 dt.15-12-2025
was appointed as a Panchayat Teacher pursuant to the
counselling held between 15.02.2007 and 19.02.2007, in
terms of the schedule issued by the District Magistrate, Saran.
She was issued an appointment letter dated 20.02.2007 issued
under signature of the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat
Raj, Bahuara Patti vide memo no. 07(Annexure 6), whereafter
she joined her post on 23.02.2007. According to the petitioner,
her appointment was made from the waiting list as several
candidates having higher merit, including private respondent
no. 12, did not appear in the counselling.
5. The private respondent no. 12, asserting superior
merit, subsequently raised objections to the petitioner's
appointment (Annexure 7). An enquiry was conducted by the
competent authorities, and the dispute ultimately reached the
District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Saran
(Annexure 8).
6. By order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure-14),
passed by The District Teachers Employment Appellate
Authority, Saran allowed the appeal of private respondent no.
12 and set aside the petitioner's appointment. The petitioner's
appeal before the State Teachers Employment Appellate
Authority, Bihar was dismissed by order dated 14.07.2017
Patna High Court CWJC No.10692 of 2017 dt.15-12-2025
(Annexure-15). Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner
has approached this Court by filing the present writ
application.
PETITIONER'S SUBMISSIONS
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was validly appointed from the waiting list after
counselling; that the private respondent no.12 admittedly did
not participate in counselling; and that the petitioner has
continued in service for several years without any complaint.
8. It is contended that the appellate authorities
exceeded their jurisdiction under Rule 18 of the Bihar
Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and
Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 and that the petitioner's
appointment, having attained finality, ought not to have been
disturbed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance
upon the decisions of this Court in Alok Kumar v. State of
Bihar CWJC No.16423 of 2008, Sunil Kumar Ojha v. State
of Bihar CWJC No. 8800 of 2008, and Prakash Kumar v.
State of Bihar CWJC No. 4878 of 2007, to contend that
settled appointments should not be reopened and that the
jurisdiction of the authorities under Rule 18 of the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.10692 of 2017 dt.15-12-2025
Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service
Conditions) Rules, 2006 is limited.
RESPONDENTS' SUBMISSIONS
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the private respondent no.12 was
found to be higher in merit; that the petitioner's appointment
was not in accordance with rules; and that the appellate
authorities acted strictly within the jurisdiction conferred upon
them under Rule 18 of the of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary
Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006.
11. It is further submitted that the foundational
order passed by The Block Development Officer, Marhwrah
dated 13.9.2008/16.10.2008(Annexure 10), on the basis of
which the subsequent appellate proceedings arose, was never
challenged by the petitioner.
12. It is contended that once the foundational order
remained unassailed, the petitioner cannot seek to set aside the
consequential appellate orders and, therefore, the writ petition
is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
13. On the pleadings and rival submissions, the
following four issues arise for consideration:
Patna High Court CWJC No.10692 of 2017 dt.15-12-2025
(i) Whether the writ petition is maintainable in
absence of any challenge to the foundational order passed by
The Block Development Officer, Marhwrah dated
13.9.2008/16.10.2008(Annexure 10), forming the basis of the
subsequent appellate proceedings?
(ii) Whether the District Teachers Employment
Appellate Authority and the State Teachers Employment
Appellate Authority acted without jurisdiction in passing the
impugned orders dated 28.02.2017 and 14.07.2017
respectively?
(iii) Whether the petitioner's long continuance in
service confers any indefeasible or vested right in her favour?
(iv) Whether the impugned orders call for
interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India?
FINDINGS
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition is
maintainable in absence of any challenge to the
foundational order passed by The Block Development
Officer, Marhwrah dated 13.9.2008/16.10.2008(Annexure
10), forming the basis of the subsequent appellate
proceedings?
Patna High Court CWJC No.10692 of 2017 dt.15-12-2025
14. This issue goes to the root of the matter. From
the materials on record, it is evident that the appellate orders
dated 28.02.2017 and 14.07.2017 specifically rely upon, and
derive their procedural foundation from, the BDO's order
dated 13.9.2008/16.10.2008. This is evident from the
operative portion of the 28.02.2017 order directing the
Selection Committee to submit a compliance report in terms
of the order dated 13.09.2008.
15. Thus, the order dated 13.9.2008/16.10.2008
constitutes the originating and determinative order which
revived the claim of respondent no.12 and enabled reopening
of the selection process after nearly a decade.
16. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged
the said foundational order. In absence of such challenge, the
petitioner cannot selectively challenge the
consequential orders passed by the District Appellate
Authority and the State Appellate Authority, both of which
rest upon the 13.9.2008/16.10.2008 order.
17. It is a settled principle that if the foundational
order is left unchallenged, consequential orders flowing from
it cannot be set aside independently. The writ petition,
therefore, fails at the threshold and were founded upon an
Patna High Court CWJC No.10692 of 2017 dt.15-12-2025
initial determination/enquiry relating to the validity of the
petitioner's appointment vis-à-vis the merit claim of the
private respondent no.12.
18. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner,
namely Alok Kumar, Sunil Kumar Ojha and Prakash
Kumar, lay down well-settled principles regarding jurisdiction
under Rule 18 and interference with settled appointments.
There can be no quarrel with the propositions of law
enunciated therein. However, the said decisions were rendered
in cases where the foundational action itself was under
challenge or was found to be without jurisdiction. In the
present case, the foundational order forming the basis of the
appellate proceedings has admittedly not been challenged. The
aforesaid decisions are, therefore, distinguishable on facts and
do not advance the case of the petitioner.
19. The writ petition, therefore, suffers from a
fundamental defect. Issue (i) is answered against the
petitioner.
(ii) Whether the District Teachers Employment
Appellate Authority and the State Teachers Employment
Appellate Authority acted without jurisdiction in passing the
impugned orders dated 28.02.2017 and 14.07.2017
Patna High Court CWJC No.10692 of 2017 dt.15-12-2025
respectively?
(iii) Whether the petitioner's long continuance in
service confers any indefeasible or vested right in her
favour?
(iv) Whether the impugned orders call for
interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India?
20. Having found and held, while considering Issue
No. (i), that the writ petition itself is not maintainable on
account of non-challenge to the foundational order forming
the very basis of the subsequent appellate proceedings, this
Court is of the considered view that the said finding goes to
the root of the matter and is sufficient to non-suit the
petitioner. In view thereof, this Court does not deem it
necessary to adjudicate upon Issue Nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv). All
the said issues are accordingly left open.
21. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court holds that
the writ application is not maintainable and is liable to be
dismissed solely on the ground of non-challenge to the
foundational order passed by The Block Development Officer,
Marhwrah dated 13.9.2008/16.10.2008(Annexure 10), thus,
the consequential appellate orders dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.10692 of 2017 dt.15-12-2025
28.02.2017 (Annexure-14) and 14.07.2017 (Annexure-15) do
not warrant interference.
22. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kiran/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 09.12.2025.
Uploading Date 15.12.2025.
Transmission Date N/A
