Case Background
The dispute began with an advertisement issued in 2006 for appointment of Panchayat Teachers in Raj Bisharia Mohim Bujurg Gram Panchayat, Kusheshwar Asthan, in the district of Darbhanga.
Both the petitioner and respondent no. 11 applied for the post. The petitioner applied under the category of physically disabled person and, according to the judgment, had more marks than respondent no. 11.
Despite this, respondent no. 11 was appointed as Panchayat Teacher. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner made a complaint before the appropriate authority. This led to constitution of a Two Men Enquiry Committee.
The enquiry was held and a joint report was submitted under the signatures of the Block Education Officer and the Block Development Officer. However, the rules stated that only the Block Development Officer was the competent authority to conduct such enquiry.
As a result of this enquiry report, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher in place of respondent no. 11.
Respondent no. 11 then approached the Patna High Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 3941 of 2008. He challenged the petitioner’s appointment on the ground that, before the next date fixed in the enquiry, the report was pre‑maturely submitted. It was also signed jointly by the B.D.O. and B.E.O., whereas the B.E.O. was not the competent authority to be part of the enquiry.
On this ground, and following another petition on a similar issue, the High Court in that earlier case quashed the appointment of the petitioner (Brahmdeo Yadav). The Court permitted the State to start a fresh proceeding, if deemed necessary, and directed that respondent no. 11 be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
The petitioner challenged the single judge’s order in L.P.A. No. 1756 of 2015. The Division Bench (Appellate Court) found that even respondent no. 11 had not been properly associated with the earlier enquiry.
The Appellate Court held that once the appointment had been quashed, the learned single judge should not have straightaway directed reinstatement of respondent no. 11. The only natural consequence was to ask the authority to complete a fresh enquiry after giving adequate opportunity to all writ applicants and affected persons.
Therefore, the Appellate Court modified the order. It directed that the reinstatement of respondent no. 11 should not be made effective. Instead, the official respondents were to proceed with the enquiry afresh and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
What the Court Examined and Decided
In the present writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 7307 of 2017), the petitioner alleged that the authorities did not follow the Appellate Court’s directions in L.P.A. No. 1756 of 2015.
According to the petitioner’s counsel, the order of the Appellate Court was “blatantly flouted”. He argued that respondent no. 11 was never removed from service and continued to work as Panchayat Teacher during the fresh enquiry.
The petitioner also stated that the new enquiry was conducted behind his back. He was not properly informed or given an opportunity to participate.
To support this, the petitioner relied on the subsequent enquiry report. This report showed that the Committee only perused the concerned register and, on that basis alone, decided that the petitioner’s appointment was bad in law.
The judgment notes that there was nothing on record to show that, in compliance with the Appellate Court’s order, respondent no. 11 had been removed from service during pendency of the enquiry.
The petitioner further relied on Annexure‑10, an information issued to the public under memo no. 63 dated 16.01.2017. This document confirmed that respondent no. 11 continued to work as Panchayat Teacher even during the enquiry period.
On this basis, the petitioner argued that the enquiry was entirely unsustainable in law and should be treated as non‑existent. According to him, if he had known that respondent no. 11 was continuing in service during the so‑called fresh enquiry, he would have brought this fact to the notice of the Appellate Court.
On the other side, counsel for respondent no. 11 raised two main objections.
First, he submitted that the petitioner had not approached the State Appellate Authority, which was the proper forum to challenge the enquiry outcome. Instead of using this statutory appeal, the petitioner straightaway invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Patna High Court, which is a discretionary remedy. On this ground, he argued that no order should be passed in the writ petition.
Second, he contended that the enquiry had been conducted on the basis of documents available with the official respondents. Referring to the enquiry report, he pointed out alleged interpolation in marks. He also said that the petitioner’s application had not been received for counselling, which would have led to his appointment as Panchayat Teacher.
The State’s counsel played a crucial role in the case. He fairly conceded that the order of the Appellate Court had not been followed fully “in its letter and spirit”.
He admitted that respondent no. 11 had been allowed to continue as Panchayat Teacher and that the enquiry was concluded without giving notice to the writ petitioner.
On these admitted facts, the Patna High Court focused on two key points: non‑compliance with the Division Bench order, and denial of opportunity to the petitioner.
The Court held that the order of the Appellate Court in L.P.A. No. 1756 of 2015 required a proper fresh enquiry. This enquiry had to be conducted after giving adequate opportunity to all sides, including the petitioner and respondent no. 11. It also clearly intended that respondent no. 11’s reinstatement should not automatically take effect in the meantime.
However, in reality, respondent no. 11 remained in service throughout, and the enquiry was concluded behind the petitioner’s back. The authorities merely checked records and decided against the petitioner without hearing him.
In such a situation, the Court found the enquiry report to be legally defective. It was based on a process that violated both the earlier Appellate Court judgment and principles of natural justice.
Therefore, the Court quashed the enquiry report.
But the Court did not stop there. It also gave detailed directions about what should happen next.
The concerned authority was directed to implement the Appellate Court’s order in its entirety. A fresh enquiry must be conducted by the same authority, but this time after giving notice to the petitioner, respondent no. 11, and all other affected parties.
The Court fixed a clear time‑line. The enquiry must commence within one week from the date on which a copy of the present order is produced before the concerned authority.
Once the enquiry begins, it must be completed within thirty days. The enquiry report is to be submitted within this period of thirty days from the date of commencement.
Regarding service status, the Court directed that, till the enquiry is concluded, respondent no. 11 “shall not be treated in service” and status quo shall be maintained.
Finally, the Court directed that necessary consequential action be taken by the authorities after receiving the new enquiry report. The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated in the judgment.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment of the Patna High Court is important for candidates in teacher appointments and other local body recruitments, especially in Bihar.
First, it shows that when a higher court issues specific directions for a fresh enquiry, the administration must follow them strictly. Any enquiry that ignores those directions can be struck down.
Second, the case underlines that no one should be condemned without being heard. Even if documents raise doubts about a person’s selection, the authority must give notice and a real chance to explain. Silent enquiries held “behind the back” of an affected person will not stand.
Third, the Court clearly stated that the status of the currently working candidate must reflect the pending enquiry. Allowing one candidate to continue in service while an enquiry about the legality of that very appointment is going on can prejudice the process.
For many rural candidates who compete for limited Panchayat Teacher posts, this decision reinforces that they can challenge unfair or one‑sided enquiries. It also reminds officials that they are bound by court orders and by basic fairness in service disputes.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the fresh enquiry into the Panchayat Teacher appointment, conducted after the Division Bench’s order in L.P.A. No. 1756 of 2015, was valid in law.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the enquiry was conducted behind the petitioner’s back and in violation of the Appellate Court’s directions, so the enquiry report was quashed.
Issue: What directions should govern the further process of deciding who is rightly entitled to the Panchayat Teacher post.
Answer: The Court directed the concerned authority to implement the Division Bench order fully, hold a fresh enquiry after proper notice to all affected parties, complete it within a fixed time, and ensure that respondent no. 11 is not treated as in service until the enquiry is concluded.
Issue: Whether the writ petition should be rejected because the petitioner had not first approached the State Appellate Authority.
Answer: The Court did not accept this objection in the face of admitted non‑compliance with the Appellate Court’s order and proceeded to grant relief by quashing the enquiry report and issuing directions.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment refers to earlier proceedings in C.W.J.C. No. 3941 of 2008 and L.P.A. No. 1756 of 2015, both relating to the same dispute. No external case law precedents are cited.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7307 of 2017
Case Title: Brahmdeo Yadav v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar
Citation: 2022 (4) PLJR 130
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate; Mr. Santosh Kumar Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate
- For respondent nos. 2 to 10: Mr. Amit Bhushan, Advocate
- For respondent no. 11: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging the validity of a departmental enquiry and related action regarding appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
