Patna High Court
Kunal Kapoor vs Zila Parishad Sitamarhi Cum Employment ... on 23 July, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1231 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4274 of 2021
======================================================
Kunal Kapoor, aged about 42 years, male, S/o Dinesh Mehta, R/o 246, Ward
No.06, Village- Bishunpur, P.S.- Bela, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Zila Parishad Sitamarhi cum Employment Unit through its Secretary DDC
cum CEO, Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi.
2. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, District- Sitamarhi.
4. The District Programme Officer, (Establishment), Sitamarhi.
5. The District Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi.
6. The State Appellate Authority, 5 C-D, Niyojan Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
Mr. Abhinav Alok, AC to AAG-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 23-07-2025
The present intra court appeal is directed against
the order dated 11.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge
in CWJC No.4274 of 2021, whereby the said writ petition, filed
by the Respondent herein, was allowed and it was decided that
the initial appointment was not made in terms of the vacancies
notified under the advertisement by the District Education
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1231 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
Officer, Sitamarhi.
2. As per the facts on record, the District Education
Officer, Sitamarhi had advertised vacancy in respect of the post
of Teachers in Madhyamik School, where sixteen posts were
advertised for the subject of Social Sciences. A roster pointwise
chart was prepared and published under the joint signature of
the District Education Officer Sitamarhi, the District
Programme Officer (Madhyamik Siksha), Sitamarhi, and the
District Programme Officer (Establishment), Sitamarhi, which
was further approved by the Regional Deputy Director of the
Education Directorate. In the said advertisement, reservations to
the grandchildren of Freedom Fighter was not mentioned. Even,
no such decision by the competent authority was taken
subsequently to appoint under the said category by the Zila
Parishad, Sitamarhi.
3. On 05.10.2017, a meeting of Zila Parishad,
Sitamarhi was held, where fourteen appointment letters were
issued, but due to a mistake, an appointment letter was issued in
favour of the appellant herein. On the very next day, the said
appointment letter was cancelled by an order of the Zila
Parishad, Sitamarhi. Against the said order, the appellant moved
to the District Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi, and the District
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1231 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
Appellate Authority rejected the cancellation order of the
appointment by the Zila Parishad, Sitmarhi. Subsequently, the
Respondents herein, appealed before the State Appellate
Authority, Patna, which was dismissed. Thereupon, the
respondents filed the writ petition vide CWJC No.4274 of 2021
before this Court.
4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the
contentions of both the parties, had allowed the writ petition,
and had disagreed with the orders passed by the District
Education Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi and the State
Appellate Authority, Patna taking into consideration, the
advertisement which was published by the District Education
Officer, which had no mention of the above quota of
grandchildren of the Freedom Fighters.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the learned Single Judge did not consider the
facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety. The appellant
further submits that the quota was to be applied on the entire
170 posts and not on sixteen posts for the subject of Social
Sciences only. The appellant has also contended that he was
appointed on the basis of his merit under 2% horizontal
reservation quota for grandchildren of Freedom Fighters and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1231 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
was given appointment letter after the counselling held for the
said posts by the Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi, which was later
cancelled by the Zila Parishad.
6. The respondents submitted that the appointments
were to be made in terms of the advertisement, and if during the
recruitment process, the quota for a particular class is not
marked, the appointment cannot be made in that class or
category. The respondents have also submitted that the
appointment letter was issued to the appellant due to an
inadvertent mistake, and the Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi, was
authorized to rectify the said mistake.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and have also gone through the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. It is clear from the facts that, here, no seat was
advertised under the quota of grandchildren of Freedom
Fighters, but appointment letter was wrongly given to the
appellant by the Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi. The Zila Parishad
corrected its mistake on the very next date and the appointment
letter was issued to the appellant was cancelled by the
concerned authorities.
9. Administrative Authorities have the power to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1231 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
correct their mistakes, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Institute of Technology v U. Dinakar and
Anr. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 180. In this case, the Court
upheld the right of Institute, which is an Administrative
Authority, to correct their mistakes which were made in the
appointment order. Similarly, here the Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi
had the right to cancel the appointment letter which was issued
to the appellant herein by mistake.
10. Paragraph 7 of the writ court judgment, reads as
under-
"It is needless to say that an appointment must be
made in respect of vacancies and if the vacancy to
a certain recruitment process does not disclose
quota for a particular cadre/group, appointment
cannot be made taking into account the vacancy in
the said group."
11. The learned Single Judge had correctly assessed
the facts of the case and rightly held that no vacancy was
advertised by the District Education Officer under the quota of
grandchildren of Freedom Fighters. The act of the Zila Parishad,
i.e., giving the appointment letter to the appellant, was illegal,
and it cannot confer any legal rights to him to remain in service.
12. In view of the above, finding no merit in the
present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1231 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
13. Pending application(s) if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.)
Gaurav Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 29.07.2025
Transmission Date N.A.
