Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 20 February, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4163 of 2020
======================================================
1. Rahul Kumar Singh, Son of Gajendra Narayan Singh, R/o Village- Ward No.
20, High School Road, P.O. and P.S.- Farbisganj, District- Araria.
2. Suman Kumar Sah, D/o Gulab Chand Sah, R/o Village- Vaijnathpur, P.O.
Pipra, P.S.- Jogbani, District- Araria.
3. Leela Nand Sah, D/o Vimal Sah, R/o Village and P.O. Pipra, P.S. Jogbani,
District- Araria.
4. Madho Mehta, Son of Raj Kumar Mehta, R/o Village - Vaijnathpur, P.O.-
Pipra, P.S. Jogbani, District- Araria.
5. Md. Rizwan Alam, S/o Md. Hasim Ali, R/o Village- Dallu Tola, Ward No.
18, P.O. and P.S. Farbisganj, District- Araria.
6. Md. Kausar Alam, S/o Md. Aliuddin, R/o Village and P.O.- Ramai, P.S. Far-
bisganj, District- Araria.
7. Md. Israfil Ansari, S/o Sultan Ansari, R/o Village and P.O.- Shasan, P.S.
Hasanpur, District- Samastipur.
8. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Shri Chandradev Sah, R/o Village- Pachiyari Jhirua,
P.O.- Basgada Rampur, P.S. Simraha, District- Araria.
9. Hariom Shankar Das, S/o Jitendra Lal Das, R/o Village and P.O.- Palasi,
P.S.- Narpathganj, District- Araria.
10. Anupam Kumari, D/o Rajendra Chaudhary, R/o Village- Phulwadi, P.S.-
Tarawadi, District- Araria.
11. Binod Kumar Sah, S/o Sita Ram Sah, R/o Villagle- Chauraha Parwaha, P.O.
and P.S. Farbisganj, District- Araria.
12. Meenu Kumari, D/o Kulanand Thakur, R/o Village and P.O.- Pipra, P.S. Jog-
bani, District- Araria.
13. Sumit Shandilya, S/o Harinarayan Jha, R/o Village- Shahwajpur, P.S. Farbis-
ganj, District- Araria.
14. Nutan Kumari D/o Sushil Sah, R/o Village- Amhara, Ward No. 9, P.O.-
Amhara, P.S. Farbisganj, District- Araria.
15. Anita Kumari, D/o Prabhu Prasad Rajak, R/o Village- Sultanpokhar, Ward
No. 4, P.S.- Farbisganj, District- Araria.
16. Uma Kumari, D/o Jaichand Sah, R/o Village- Patel Nagar, P.O. and P.S.-
Jogbani, District- Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Araria.
5. The District Programme Officer (Estt.), Araria.
6. The Block Development Officer, Forbesganj, Araria.
7. The Block Education Officer, Forbesganj, Araria.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4163 of 2020 dt.20-02-2025
2/11
8. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Pipra, Block Forbesganj, Araria.
9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Pipra Block Forbesganj,
Araria.
10. The Member, District Teacher s Appointment Appellate Authority. Not
Available.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-02-2025
Heard Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned senior counsel along
with Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, learned senior
counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition have sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
"(i) To issue an appropriate writ order
direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no.5 to grant departmental approval on the
letter no.7 dated 25.04.2019 where under the Panchayat
Secretary Panchayat Raj Pipra requested for approval of
the appointment of the petitioners through memo no.4 dated
28.08.2017
in terms of the order dated 25.07.2017 passed in
CWJC No. 16549 of 2016 and also in terms of the order
dated 26.10.2018 passed in Appeal No. 444 of 2018 by the
State Appellate Tribunal, Patna.
(ii) To issue an appropriate writ order
direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to pay the salary to the petitioners from the
date of their appointment through memo no. 4 dated
28.08.2017 till today made by the Panchayat Secretary
Panchayat Raj Pipra on the basis of the order dated
25.07.2017 passed in CWJC No. 16549 of 2019.
(iii) To issue an appropriate writ order
direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to grant approval upon the decision dated
28.08.2017 in Agenda No.2 by the Teacher Employment
Unit, Pipra under the signature of Mukhiya cum Chairman,
Panchayat Teacher Employment Unit for appointment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4163 of 2020 dt.20-02-2025
petitioners on the post of Panchayat Teacher in terms of
order dated 25.07.2017 passed in CWJC No. 16549 of 2016.
(iv) To any other relief for which the
petitioner appear to be found entitled by the Hon'ble
Court."
3. In continuation of the order dated 16.01.2025
and the development subsequent to the same, the District
Programme Officer (Establishment), Araria, who was present in
the Court on 28.01.2025 had accepted to examine the records
and take appropriate action in the meanwhile. He was present in
the Court on 30.01.2025 to assist this Court along with the
exercise undertaken by him and a request was made to notify
the very next day for hearing of the writ petition. It was
informed at the relevant time that a camp order has been passed
by the concerned District Programme Officer, who was present
in the Court, but as per the advice of Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh,
learned Senior counsel, he found it not to bring the same on
record and to withdraw. The said development was not recorded
at the request of the District Programme Officer
(Establishment). However, today the same finds relevance to
observe, in what manner, the State functionaries, particularly,
the District Programme Officer (Establishment) is not the one
who has found it proper to misplace the records just to defeat
the right of a citizen. This Court would have passed order for
initiation of disciplinary action against the said officer, but at the
same time, I am constrained to direct the same. It is up to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4163 of 2020 dt.20-02-2025
State Government to take appropriate action in this regard.
4. Coming to the facts of the present case,
aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents and the
Employment Unit, the petitioners, who were seeking their
appointment on the post of Panchayat Teachers after coming
into force of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers
(Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, which was
subsequently amended in the year 2012 giving status of the
Panchayat teachers, as per their qualification. The Employment
Unit at Panchayat level constitutes of Panchayat Secretary, one
member selected by the Gram Panchayat Shikhsha Samiti and
Mukhiya, who is the Chairman of the Employment Unit, Pipra.
Altogether, 16 petitioners, who are before this Court were
appointed pursuant to the order passed by this Court, by taking
exercise in light of the direction contained in the CWJC
No.14697 of 2016 ( Navin Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
and Ors.). I find it proper to take note of the information given
by the learned State counsel that the case of the petitioners are
identical to that of Navin Kumar (Supra), which led the
Authority to comply with the direction contained in Memo
no.11 dated 15.04.2014 passed by the District Appellate
Authority. A further development took place subsequent to the
appointment of the petitioners. The District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Araria preferred Appeal No.457 of 2018/444 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4163 of 2020 dt.20-02-2025
2018/458 of 20148 against the order passed by the District
Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Araria in Appeal
Nos.36 of 2012-13, 37 of 2012-13 and 40 of 2012-13. The
Chairperson, State Appellate Authority, by taking note of the
entire facts of the case and the governing Rules finally
concluded that "if the vacancies were not earmarked and made
available to the Employment Committee, then the appointment
cannot be made. However, if the vacancies were made available
in these phases to be filled up by the Appointment Committee of
the said Gram Panchayat, then the impugned order itself directs
that the process of selection should be completed as per the
provisions and the appointment should be made. These appeals
were disposed of."
5. I must further take notice that the development in
respect of the relevant Rules, which was governing the
employment was considered by the State Appellate Authority.
Subsequently, in compliance of the judgment passed by the
State Appellate Authority, the Panchayat Secretary, Gram
Panchayat, Pipra took up the matter to comply with the direction
contained in the order dated 25.07.2017 passed in CWJC
No.16549 of 2016 and in light of the District Programme
Officer (Establishment) Letter No.2067 dated 25.08.2017, the
Employment Unit convened its meeting which was approved by
the District Programme Officer (Establishment) vide Letter
Patna High Court CWJC No.4163 of 2020 dt.20-02-2025
No.518 dated 09.02.2018. Evidently, the above exercise was
taken in compliance of the order of the State Appellate
Authority dated 26.10.2018, as well as, the direction of this
Court in CWJC No.16549 of 2016. The Panchayat Secretary in
the said letter dated 25.04.2019 had requested the District
Programme Officer (Establishment) to approve the payment of
salary for the period they had worked after employment. The
petitioners too made a request by filing a joint petition on
07.05.2019 before the District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Araria. The case of the petitioners for payment
becomes well fortified by the decision of the Director, Primary
Education, which is reproduced hereinafter:
**lafpdk la0&7@eq01&22@2017@998@iVuk fnukad
03@10@17 jkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa f"k{kd fu;kstu lekfIr ds ckn
fuxZr foHkkxh; i=kad&606 fnukad 17-05-2016 ,oa i=kad 95 fnukad 25-01-
2015 dh leh{kk dh x;hA leh{kksijkUr fy, x;s fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa
foHkkxh; i=kad&606 fnukad&17-05-2016 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA lkFk
gh foHkkxh; i=kad 95 fnukad 25-01-2015 ds dafMdk (XVII) ds va"k
*ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,oa vihyh; izkf/kdkj ds vkns"k ds vuqikyu ds
mDr inksa ij fu;kstu djus ds iwoZ foHkkx ls lgefr izkIr fd;k tkuk
vko";d gksxk* dks foyksfir fd;k tkrk gSA foHkkxh; i=kad 95 fnukad 25-
01-2015 dh vU; dafMdk,a iwoZor~ jgsaxhA
bl vkns"k ij l{ke izkf/kdkj dk vuqeksnu izkIr gSA
xxxx
funs"kd] izkFkfed f"k{kkA**
6. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the
present District Programme Officer (Establishment) who for the
reason best known to him, in spite of having admitted in the
Court, that he will proceed to look into the matter in light of the
direction of the Director, Primary Education contained in letter
no.998 dated 03.10.2017 by which requirement of approval
Patna High Court CWJC No.4163 of 2020 dt.20-02-2025
from the Education Department in terms of the letter no.606
dated 17.05.2016 has been deleted in the cases where any
direction for appointment has been made on the post of Block
Panchayat Teacher on the basis of the order passed by the
Hon'ble Court and the Tribunal is no more required.
7. The District Programme Officer (Establishment)
instead of giving specific answer, in this regard, has proceeded
to victimize the petitioners at his personal level by misusing his
power. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners in open Court informs that the
petitioners have been misbehaved and ill treated for having
approached this Court and victimized for the personal
appearance of the District Programme Officer (Establishment)
before this Court.
8. Subjecting the citizens to humiliation by taking
coercive measure by the authorities considering themselves to
be in power, action is required to be taken against such
authorities in accordance with the Rule of Law. This also
concerns this Court that the State should not let its officers to act
in a manner they want without giving due respect to the Rule of
Law and the the directives contained in our Constitution. In the
present case, the mandate of the Constitution can only be said to
have been frustrated by the personal whims of the Officer whose
name is Mr. Ravi Ranjan (District Programme Officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.4163 of 2020 dt.20-02-2025
(Establishment), who was heard and requested by the Court that
he should correct himself and not to indulge in alleged illegal
practice having given him proper opportunity for taking
corrective measures. This Court is anguished by the manner in
which he has proceeded to comply with the Government's
Orders, the direction contained in Memo no. 998 dated
03.10.2017, issued by the Director, Primary Education.
9. At this stage, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, learned
Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State refers Para - 23
of the reply to the rejoinder that the officer has supplemented
the fresh reason in the shape of affidavit to validate his action by
fresh grounds , which I find it gainful to reproduce:-
"That the contents of Para 13 are absolutely
denied. It is submitted that no cogent reason has been
adduced by the petitioners to show that the report by DPO,
Est., Araria is arbitrary or illegal. It further is submitted
that the enquiry was conducted by following the due
procedure laid down in Letter No. 7571 dated 06.06.2013
and the same is not contrary to law. The procedure for
payment of salary is elucidated below:-
(i) Appointment determined whether valid or not.
(ii) Head master, before accepting Appointment
Letter, gets it verified by BO/DPO Est. of the said
block.
(iii) Candidate is allowed to work and attendance is
marked.
(iv) Absentee Report by Head Master is sent to the
Block Education Officer.
(v) Block Education Officer compiles it and sends it
with bill to DPO, Est.
(vi) Bill is paid.
Attendance Register for payment of salary of the
petitioner and the likes was never sent and hence,
was not paid."
10. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief
Patna High Court CWJC No.4163 of 2020 dt.20-02-2025
Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in (1978) 1 SCC
405, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there
cannot be any substitution of executive order or even the Rules
promulgated with the averment made in the counter affidavit. I
find it gainful to reproduce the observation made in paragraph
no. 8.
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that
when a statutory functionary makes an order based on
certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the
reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by
fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.
Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the
time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later brought out. We
may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J.
in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v.
Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] :
"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a
statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of
explanations subsequently given by the officer making
the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind,
or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public
authorities are meant to have public effect and are
intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to
whom they are addressed and must be construed
objectively with reference to the language used in the
order itself."
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as
they grow older."
11. The information which is contained in para -23
can not be accepted having been developed in bad taste by the
District Programme Officer (Establishment), who appears to
have directed the Principal to give information by force, which
is not permissible in law.
12. In view of the aforementioned facts, I hold that
to deny the requisite pay / salary / wages to the petitioners, the
authorities have deliberately delayed for which they themselves
Patna High Court CWJC No.4163 of 2020 dt.20-02-2025
can be held responsible. The Bombay High Court in the case of
All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Bombay City, reported in AIR 1954 BOM 232,
has held as under:
"8. But the most surprising contention is put
forward by the Department that because their own officer
failed to discharge his statutory duty, the assessee is
deprived of his right which the law has given to him under
Sub-section (2) of Section 24. In other words, the
Department wants to benefit from and wants to take
advantage of its own default. It is an elementary principle of
law that no person--we take it that the Income-tax
Department is included in that definition--can put forward
his own default in defence to a right asserted by the other
party. A person cannot say that the party claiming the right
is deprived of that right because "I have committed a
default and the right is lost because of that default."
13. Petitioners who have continued to work have
claimed to be entitled for payment of salary in view of the
admitted position that they were appointed and their services till
date have not been terminated in accordance with the law laid
down in the case of Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
through Secretary & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
726.
14. As recent, in Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held to regularize
the services forthwith.
15. The petitioners, who have faced no adverse
order have made out their case for considering them for
Patna High Court CWJC No.4163 of 2020 dt.20-02-2025
payment of salary along with arrears for the period they have
worked since 28.08.2017.
16. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Bihar is directed to call the present District
Programme Officer (Establishment) and also call for the service
particulars of the petitioners and take corrective measures in
accordance with the discussions made hereinabove and the law
laid down by the Apex Court. He must further take notice of the
officer namely Mr. Ravi Ranjan, whether any action is required
against him.
17. He must ensure that his subordinates act within
their jurisdiction and if at all they require any training he must at
once take up such action.
18. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.03.2025
Transmission Date NA
