Patna High Court – Orders
Boby Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 5 March, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3356 of 2020
======================================================
Boby Devi Wife of Girindra Mohan Prasad Resident of Village and P.O.-
Wari, Block- Sindhiya, P.S.- Sindhiya, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur.
3. The District Program Officer, Establishment, Samastipur.
4. The District Education Officer, Samastipur.
5. The Block Education Officer, Rosara, District- Samastipur.
6. The Presiding Officer, District Appellate Authority, Samastipur.
7. The Member District Teacher Niyojan Appellate Authority, Samastipur.
8. The Mukhiya Cum Chairman Under Gram Panchayat Niyojan Samiti, Under
Gram Panchayat Raj, Bharwari, Block- Rosara, District- Samastipur.
9. The Panchayat Secretary, Under Gram Panchayat Raj, Bharwari, Block-
Rosara, District- Samastipur.
10. Smt. Priyanshu Kumari Wife of Raju Sao @ Arjun Prasad Sahu Resident of
Village- Hanuman Nagar, P.O.- Bharwari, Via- Mangal garh, P.S.- Rosara,
Block- Rosara, District- Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Shilpa Singh ( GA-12 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 05-03-2025
Heard Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Shilpa Singh,
learned GA-12 for the respondent/s.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is
Patna High Court CWJC No.3356 of 2020(4) dt.05-03-2025
2/5
reproduced hereinafter:
“(i) For issuance of writ/ Writs, Order/
Orders, Direction/ Directions in the nature of
certiorari quashing the order impugned dated
09.07.2019 passed by Kishore Kumar Mandal,
Chair Person (J) State Appellate Authority,
Education Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna, whereby and where under appeal No.
633/2018 filed by the petitioner has been rejected
and affirming the order dated 14.9.2018 passed by
the District Teachers Employment Appellate
Authority, Samastipur, passed in appeal No.
1494/2011.
(ii) For further quashing the impugned
letter No. 01 dated 4.2.2015 issued by Panchayat
Niyojan Samastipur under Gram Panchayat Raj
Bharwari, Block- Rosara, District- Samastipur, in
which the appointment of the petitioner was cancel
by the Niyojan Samiti. In which the petitioner
preferred by way of an appeal No. 1494/2011 before
the District Appellate Authority, Samastipur, praying
for set aside the letter No. 01 dated 4.2.2015 but the
same has been rejected on 14.9.2018.
(iii) For further direction upon the
Respondents to immediately accept the fresh joining
of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher in
Primary School, Malikana Mushahari under Gram
Panchayat Raj, Bharwari, Block- Rosra, District-
Samastipur in view of the appointment letter was
issued by the Respondent Niyojan Samiti.
(iv) For further any other relief/ reliefs,
order/orders, direction/ directions may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
3. I have perused the judgment dated 09.07.2019
passed by the State Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 633 of
2018. It is admitted case that the petitioner was appointed on
23.06.2011 by the appointing body as Panchayat Teacher for
Class I to V, during the period, when the Bihar Elementary
Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rule, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rule, 2006’) was in force.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3356 of 2020(4) dt.05-03-2025
3/5
Subsequent to same, while Rule, 2006 was repealed and all the
previous acts were saved, the petitioner continued as Niyojit
Shikshak as per her qualification till she was restrained from
performing her duty on 04.02.2015, on the basis of information
that one Smt. Priyanshu Kumari, who has been impleaded as
private respondent no. 10 to the present writ petition, was also
appointed as Panchayat Teacher on 20.03.2007 by the same
employment unit and till the year 2009, no dispute was raised
against her employment. However, private respondent no. 10
did not join for several months.
4. Petitioner is aggrieved by the arbitrary
removal/termination on the ground that due process as
prescribed for taking disciplinary action contained in Sub-
Clause (Chh) of Rule 15 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary
Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 2012’), for imposing major
punishment has not been followed.
5. I find that the State Appellate Authority has not
been able to appreciate to decide the case of the petitioner, as
well as, private respondent no. 10 on the basis of materials
available on record relating to their appointment and has also
miserably failed to record the information, which were
Patna High Court CWJC No.3356 of 2020(4) dt.05-03-2025
4/5
furnished by the employment unit. Though, it appears from the
impugned judgment that the District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Samastipur, District Education Officer,
Samastipur and Block Education Officer, Rosara, Samastipur,
were impleaded as respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 respectively and
they were heard. The judgment dated 09.07.2019 passed by the
State Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 633 of 2018 requires
interference of this Court.
6. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the State
Appellate Authority for deciding the case of the petitioner and
respondent no. 10 afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing
to all the parties, on the basis of materials available with the
employment unit in respect of the appointment of respondent
no. 10 and the petitioner and, thereafter, the same should be
judged, as to whether, the due process was followed by the
employment unit or by the District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Samastipur, in terminating the petitioner and in
again reinstating the respondent no. 10 in her place in
accordance with Sub-Clause (Chh) of Rule 15 of Rules, 2012.
7. The State Appellate Authority can take remedial
measures and correct the order passed by the sub-ordinate
forum.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3356 of 2020(4) dt.05-03-2025
5/5
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U