IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.697 of 2025

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3650 of 2020

CNR No. BRHC010703452025

======================================================

Md. Mustajab Alam Son of Md. Usman Miya, Resident of Village-Dumaria,

P.O.-Parsa, Block Majhaulia, P.S. Majhaulia, District-West Champaran.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt.

of Bihar, Patna.

2.The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.The District Magistrate, West Champaran.

4.The District Education Officer, West Champaran.

5.The District Programme Officer (Establishment), West Champaran.

6.The Block Development Officer, Block- Majhaulia, P.S.Majhaulia,District-

West Champaran.

7.The Block Education Officer, Block- Majhaulia, P.S.Majhaulia, District-

West Champaran.

8.The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bahuarwa, Block- Majhaulia,

P.S.Majhaulia, District- West Champaran.

9.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj- Bahuarwa, Block-

Majhaulia, P.S.Majhaulia, District- West Champaran.

10.Zila Lok Shikayat Niwaran Padadhikari, West Champaran at Bettiah.

11.District Appellate Authority, West Champaran at Bettiah.

12.The Chairperson, the State Appellate Authority, Education Department,

Bihar, Patna.

13.Shahzad Hussain @ Shahjad Hussain, Son of Chauki Miyan, resident of

Village-Bahuarwa, P.S. Majhaulia, District-West Champaran.

14.Abha Sinha, D/o Bharat Prasad, Village and P.O.- Madhopur, Block-

Majhaulia, P.S.Majhaulia, District- West Champaran.

15.Manoj Ram, Son of Jang Bahadur Ram, Village and P.o. Mirzapur, Block-

Majhaulia, P.S.Majhaulia,District- West Champaran.

16.Md. Sabir Ali, Son of Wasir Ali, Village and P.O.- Lal Saraiya, Block-

Majhaulia, P.S.Majhaulia,District- West Champaran.

17.Firoj Alam, Son of Nurjan Miya, Village and P.O.- Jaukatiya, Block-

Majhaulia, P.S.Majhaulia, District- West Champaran.

18.Rita Kumari, D/o Dashrath Chaudhary, Village and P.O. Sugauli Bazar,

Block- Sugauli, District- East Champaran.

19.Tabbassum Praveen, D/o Md. Akhtar Hussain, Mohalla and P.O. Teen

Lalten, Bettiah Block - Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah, District- West Champaran.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

2/16

20.Satya Pravriti, Son of Yogendra Prasad Yadav, Mohalla- P.O. Teen Lalten,

Bettiah, Block Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah, District- West Champaran.

21.Ajeet Kumar Singh, Son of Awadh Kumar Singh, Village and P.O.- Parsa,

Block- Majhaulia, P.S. -Majhaulia, District- West Champaran.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, A.A.G.-15

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 15-10-2026

This intra-court appeal has been filed challenging

the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge

in C.W.J.C. No. 3650 of 2020, whereby the learned Single

Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent no. 13

herein by stating in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 as under:-

"5. Considering the aforesaid submission, the

District Programme Officer (Establishment), West

Champaran is directed to call for all the service

particulars relating to the petitioner from the

District Education Officer, Block Education Officer

and also from the office of the Gram Panchayat,

Bahuarwa, West Champaran for taking corrective

measures on the basis of the documents produced

by the District Education Officer before the State

Appellate Authority. The order dated 29.08.2019 of

the State Appellate Authority is interfered for the

reason that it has not considered the case of the

petitioner on the basis of the materials which were

required for adjudication of the case. The State

Appellate Authority is directed to take corrective

measures in accordance with the Bihar Panchayat

Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service

Conditions) Rules, 2006, amended up-to-date

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

3/16

expeditiously.

6. The order passed by the State Appellate

Authority (Education Department) in Appeal No.

306 of 2019 dated 29.08.2019 is hereby modified to

the above extent.

7. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the

present writ petition stands disposed of."

2. The appeal has been filed by Md. Mustajab Alam,

who was respondent no. 19 before the learned Single Judge. The

case of the appellant herein is that the learned Single Judge has

decided the writ petition in violation of the principles of natural

justice, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the

appellant and also without considering the fact that both the

District Authority as well as the State Appellate Authority had

dismissed the appeal filed by the writ petitioner/respondent no.

13 on the ground of delay, as the same was filed after more than

11 years, of the cause of action.

3. The facts to be noted for the purpose of this

judgment are that, pursuant to the first phase of appointment in

the year 2006 to the post of Panchayat Teacher, the appellant,

the respondent no. 13/writ petitioner and other private

respondents applied for the said post in Gram Panchayat-Raj

Bahuarwa under different categories. It is stated that, on the

basis of the merits and the documents available on record, an

appointment letter was issued to the appellant on 24.01.2007.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

4/16

The appellant accordingly joined the allotted school. Since then,

the appellant has been working continuously to the satisfaction

of all concerned. Recently, the appellant became a trained

Exclusive Teacher and submitted his joining as a trained

Exclusive Teacher in Government Primary School, Chainpur

Bahuarwa, Majhaulia, West Champaran.

4. The counsel submitted that respondent no. 13/

writ petitioner is allegedly aggrieved by the selection of the

appellant and other private respondents on the ground that he

had secured 69.11% marks in the Intermediate examination and

yet was not selected for appointment to the post of Panchayat

Teacher, whereas the appellant and other private respondents,

having Moulvi degrees, were appointed against general posts,

which, according to him, is in violation of Rule 6 of the Bihar

Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment & Service

Conditions) Rules, 2006.

5. According to the counsel, respondent no. 13 has

alleged that he had represented before the authorities, including

the Block Development Officer, District Education Officer and

District Magistrate, but no action was taken by the authorities. It

was only in the year 2018 that respondent no. 13/writ petitioner

filed a complaint before the District Public Grievance Redressal

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

5/16

Officer, West Champaran, who passed an order dated

31.10.2018 directing him to file a complaint before the District

Level Authority. Thereafter, in the year 2018 itself, respondent

no. 13/writ petitioner filed Appeal Case No. 37 of 2018 before

the District Level Authority, West Champaran. According to the

counsel for the appellant, necessary parties were not impleaded

as respondents in the said appeal. In any event, the District

Level Authority, West Champaran, vide order dated 14.05.2019,

dismissed the appeal on the ground of unexplained delay of 11

years. In the appeal preferred therefrom before the State

Appellate Authority, Bihar, being Appeal Case No. 306 of 2019,

the State Appellate Authority, vide order dated 29.08.2019, also

dismissed the appeal at the stage of admission, finding no

infirmity therein.

6. It is pursuant thereto that respondent no. 13/writ

petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 3650 of 2020 challenging the order

dated 29.08.2019 passed by the State Appellate Authority in

Appeal Case No. 306 of 2019. He submits that the learned

Single Judge of this Court, vide the impugned order dated

27.01.2025, modified the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the

State Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 306 of 2019 and

directed the District Programme Officer (Establishment), West

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

6/16

Champaran, to call for all the service particulars from the office

of Gram Panchayat, Bahuarwa, for taking corrective measures.

7. He contests the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge by stating that the appellant was selected

and appointed as a Panchayat Teacher in the year 2007.

Thereafter, fresh selection processes were also initiated in the

subsequent years. He submits that the writ petitioner/respondent

no. 13 slept over the matter for the next 11 years from the date

of selection and appointment of the appellant and, for the first

time, approached the District Level Authority in the year 2018,

which was clearly belated. He submits that the learned Single

Judge has overlooked the aforesaid important aspects, as

concluded by the District Level Authority and the State

Appellate Authority, inasmuch as the impugned order does not

even refer to the conclusions drawn by the said authorities.

8. It is also his submission that the impugned order

is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as it was

passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

He states that no notice was issued in the writ petition and, on

this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

9. That apart, it is his submission that the learned

Single Judge failed to appreciate that, under the provisions of

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

7/16

the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment & Service

Conditions) Rules, 2006, the Block Development Officer was

authorised and empowered to hear complaints relating to the

employment of Panchayat Teachers, but the writ petitioner did

not file any complaint before the prescribed authority, i.e., the

Block Development Officer, Majhaulia. The counsel also

submits that even after amendment of the Rules, 2006 in the

year 2008, whereby the District Level Authority was constituted

in place of the Block Development Officer, the writ petitioner

did not prefer any appeal before the District Level Authority for

the next 10 years.

10. He states that the complaint was required to be

filed within 30 days from the date of accrual of the cause of

action and, therefore, the District Authority as well as the State

Appellate Authority rightly dismissed the appeals filed by

respondent no. 13/writ petitioner. In any event, it is his

submission that the appointment of the appellant, who possessed

a Moulvi degree, to the post of general teacher under the Bihar

Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment & Service

Conditions) Rules, 2006 was valid, as the requisite educational

qualification for appointment as a Panchayat Primary Teacher

prescribed under Rule 8 was Higher Secondary/Intermediate or

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

8/16

an equivalent degree from a Government-recognised institution.

11. As early as in the year 1977, the degree of

Moulvi awarded by the Madarsa Board had been declared

equivalent by the State Government vide memo dated

11.03.1977 and letter dated 24.07.2006 clarified that a Moulvi

degree shall be treated as equivalent to Intermediate. Therefore,

it is his submission that the appellant, having possessed a

Moulvi degree, was rightly appointed against the general post.

12. Finally, the controversy regarding the eligibility

of Moulvi degree holders for appointment as general teachers

has been laid to rest by the decision dated 17.01.2018 passed by

this Court in L.P.A. No. 730 of 2015, holding that candidates

possessing Moulvi qualifications were eligible for appointment

as general teachers under the Employment Rules, 2006.

13. In conclusion, the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant is that the appointment of the appellant

as a Panchayat Teacher was justified and the challenge made by

respondent no. 13/writ petitioner in the year 2018 was clearly

untenable, and the challenge was rightly rejected by the District

Level Authority and the State Appellate Authority.

14. He submits that the impugned order passed by

the learned Single Judge, without considering the aforesaid

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

9/16

aspects, is liable to be set aside.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for

respondent no. 13 would justify the order passed by the learned

Single Judge. According to him, the District Level Authority

was not justified in rejecting the challenge on the ground of

delay. He states that after the Selection Committee had

appointed the appellant, Md. Mustajab Alam, in violation of

Rule 6 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment

& Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, the petitioner had

represented before the Selection Committee, but no action was

taken.

16. He submits that the petitioner approached the

Block Development Education Officer at Majhaulia, the District

Education Officer at Bettiah, the Collector of West Champaran

as well as the Commissioner of Tirhut Division at Muzaffarpur,

but all in vain, as no relief was granted to the petitioner. He

states that, on 09.10.2018, the petitioner filed a complaint before

the District Lok Shikayat Nivaran Padadhikari, West Champaran

at Bettiah, alleging the aforesaid irregularity and illegal

appointment. After hearing the complaint, an order was passed

on 31.10.2018 directing the petitioner to file a complaint before

the District Level Authority, West Champaran at Bettiah. It was

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

10/16

pursuant thereto that respondent no. 13/writ petitioner

approached the District Level Authority and the State Appellate

Authority, both of which rejected the challenge made by the

petitioner against the appointment of the appellant.

17. He highlighted the fact that the complaint made

before the Block Development Education Officer, Majhaulia, on

25.12.2006 was not answered. Even the application submitted

before the District Education Officer, West Champaran at

Bettiah, on 10.06.2008 was not answered. Similar was the

position when he filed an application before the Collector of

West Champaran on 27.04.2009, which also remained

unanswered. He states that respondent no. 13/writ petitioner had

been regularly filing complaints before the authorities from the

year 2006 to 2017, which fact has been appreciated by the

learned Single Judge while issuing the directions reflected in the

aforesaid paragraphs.

18. He also submits that, in this background, the

learned Single Judge directed the District Programme Officer

(Establishment), West Champaran, to call for all the service

particulars relating to the petitioner from the District Education

Officer, Block Education Officer and also from the office of

Gram Panchayat, Bahuarwa, West Champaran, for taking

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

11/16

corrective measures on the basis of the documents produced by

the District Education Officer before the State Appellate

Authority. In that sense, there is no illegality in the order passed

by the learned Single Judge.

19. The learned A.A.G.-15 appearing for the State

would only support the order passed by the learned Single

Judge.

20. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

the short issue which arises for consideration is whether the

learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside/modifying the

order passed by the State Appellate Authority in the manner

indicated in the aforesaid paragraphs.

21. The answer to the issue has to be in the negative,

inasmuch as there is no dispute that the selection in question

was held in the year 2006. It is also not disputed that respondent

no. 13/writ petitioner was a candidate in the said selection

process. It is thus an admitted position that the appellant herein

was selected as a Panchayat Teacher, whereas respondent no.

13/writ petitioner was not appointed. Surely, his non-

appointment would give a cause of action to respondent no.

13/writ petitioner to approach the competent authority

challenging his non-appointment as a Panchayat Teacher.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

12/16

22. Though the respondent no. 13/writ petitioner has

stated that he approached the Block Development Education

Officer, thereafter the District Education Officer, the Collector

and then the Commissioner, but no response was forthcoming.

Nothing precluded the petitioner from approaching the District

Level Authority during the period from 2006 to 2009.

23. By that time, the Rules of 2006 had undergone

an amendment in the year 2008, whereby the Block

Development Officer was replaced by the District Level

Authority as the authority before whom a complaint could be

filed. In that sense, the District Level Authority was competent

and had jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals relating to the

employment of teachers appointed under the Employment Rules

of 2006.

24. So, it seems respondent no. 13/writ petitioner did

not file any appeal in the year 2008 or for the next 10 years

thereafter, but only in the year 2018, which was clearly barred

by limitation. In that sense, the District Level Authority was

right in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. We

find that even the State Appellate Authority upheld the order of

the District Level Authority by observing in paragraphs 5 and 6

as under:-

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

13/16

“5. The matter relates to employment of Panchayat

teachers under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary

Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions)

Rules, 2006 (for short, Employment Rules, 2006).

The process of first phase of Panchayat teacher's

employment was completed and closed in the year

2007 itself. Thereafter, the second phase of

employment of Panchayat teachers was also

started in the year 2008 and closed in the year

2010. The Employment Rules, 2006 were replaced

by the Employment Rules 2012, under which the

procedure, norms and criteria for employments of

Panchayat teachers were changed. Further, the

remaining vacancies of first and second phases of

employment, were carried forward and clubbed

with the posts for third phase of employment to be

made under Employment Rules, 2012.

Under rule 18 of the Employment

Rules, 2006, the Block Development Officer

(B.D.O.) was authorized and empowered to hear

complaint related to the employment of panchayat

teacher. But the appellant did not file any

complaint before B.D.O., Majhaulia. Rule 18 of the

Employment Rules, 2006 was amended by Bihar

Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and

Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2008 (for

short, Amendment Rules, 2008), replacing the

B.D.O. by a District level Authority having one or

more members. appointed by the State

Government, having powers and jurisdiction to

hear and decide appeals related to employment of

teachers employed under Employment Rules, 2008.

But the appellant did not file any appeal before the

District Authority in the year 2008 and the next 10

years till he filed the appeal in the year 2018. The

appellant has claimed to have filed complaints

before the District Public Grievance Redressal Cell

and other authorities who do not have power and

jurisdiction under the Employment Rules, 2006 or

Amendment Rules, 2008 or Employment Rules,

2012 to hear any appeal related to employment of

Panchayat teachers under these Rules. It is well

settled that filing a complaint/appeal before an

authority other than the authority prescribed under

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

14/16

the relevant rules, is as good as filing no

complaint/appeal under relevant rules.

The appellant was not selected in the

first phase of employment. But, effectively he filed

the appeal before the District Authority, West

Champaran, in the year 2018, after a lapse of 11

years from the date of completion of the

employment process in the year 2007. Hence, his

appeal before the District Authority was grossly

time barred and fit to be dismissed on that ground

alone. He has claimed employment in 2018 on the

basis of his application submitted in the year 2006

under Employment Rules, 2006. Further all

previous vacancies of first and 2nd phases have

been carried forward and clubbed with subsequent

vacancies against which the employment was made

under Employment Rules, 2012. The Private

respondents were employed in the year 2006 and

2007 and have been working as Panchayat

Teachers for the last 12 years. It is well settled that

an aggrieved person must approach the competent

Court/ Authority for redressal of his grievance at

the earliest opportunity before parallel rights are

created and entrenched due to lapse of time and

acquiescence. In the present case, the private

respondents have been working for the last 12

years and their employment cannot be cancelled

after a lapse of 12 years.

6. Hence, the learned District Authority has rightly

dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the

ground of limitation, apart from other grounds. I do

not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed

by the learned District Authority which is upheld

and the appeal is dismissed at the stage of

admission.”

25. We find that the learned Single Judge has not

considered the detail orders passed by the District Level

Authority/State Appellate Authority from which the writ petition

arose. In other words, the writ petition challenged the order

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

15/16

passed by the State Appellate Authority, but the learned Single

Judge, without adverting to the same, has exercised the power

conferred upon a Writ Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, which is clearly erroneous.

26. What is important is also that, as stated by the

State Appellate Authority, pursuant to the selection made in the

year 2006, selections to the post of Panchayat Teacher were also

held in the subsequent years. In that sense, when selections

subsequent to the impugned selection had been held for several

years, it was too late in the day for respondent no. 13/writ

petitioner to challenge a selection which was held in the year

2006. To that extent, the selection of 2006 had attained finality.

Not only the selection of 2006 attained finality, but even the

subsequent selections and appointment in 2006 could not have

been made the subject matter of challenge, that too after almost

12 years from the date of the selection.

27. Having said that, we must hold that the

impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated

27.01.2025 is clearly erroneous, as it overlooks the aforesaid

important aspects of the case and also fails to advert to the

impugned order passed by the State Appellate Authority.

28. We are of the view that the State Appellate

Patna High Court L.P.A No.697 of 2025 dt.15-10-2026

16/16

Authority was justified in holding that the appeal filed by

respondent no. 13 before the District Level Authority

challenging the selection of 2006 was clearly barred by

limitation. Hence, we set aside the order dated 27.01.2025

passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3650 of

2020.

29. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of and

the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No.

3650 of 2020 is hereby set aside.

30. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also

stand disposed of.

Neha/-

(V. Kameswar Rao, CJ)

(Partha Sarthy, J): I agree

(Partha Sarthy, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 29.09.2026

Uploading Date 15.10.2026

Transmission Date