Case Background
The matter arose from a selection process for the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in Gram Panchayat Raj Purushottimpur, Block Lahladpur, District Saran. The selection took place in the year 2005 under Government Resolution No.1079 dated 20.06.2002 of the Primary and Adult Education Department, Bihar.
The appellant had passed his matriculation examination from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, securing 509 out of 700 marks in first division. On this basis he applied for selection as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in 2005.
In that selection process, one of the private respondents, Rajesh Kumar Pandey, along with others, was selected. The appellant was not appointed and did not immediately challenge the selection or the appointments.
From 01.07.2006, the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service) Rules, 2006 came into force. These Rules abolished the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and introduced a new post of Panchayat Shikshak.
It was only in 2015 that the appellant, according to his own pleadings, sought information under the Right to Information Act on 17.06.2015. After receiving information, he claimed to have learnt that some appointed candidates had secured lesser marks than him. He then started pursuing legal remedies.
The appellant first approached the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Saran by filing Appeal No.2017. On 26.09.2018, that Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction in relation to a non-existent Panchayat Shiksha Mitra post.
He next filed Appeal No.689 of 2018 before the State Appellate Authority. On 27.02.2019, the State Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, holding that in view of the Full Bench judgment in Kalpana Rani v. The State of Bihar & Ors., it could not entertain such a claim.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10606 of 2019 before the Patna High Court. On 10.05.2019, a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by relying on the Full Bench decision in Kalpana Rani and by noting that the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra had been abolished with effect from 01.07.2006. The writ was also held to be barred by delay and laches.
The appellant then preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal No.714 of 2019 challenging the Single Judge’s order dated 10.05.2019.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy, heard the Letters Patent Appeal. The judgment was delivered orally by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy on 25.08.2022.
The core question before the Court was whether the appellant, who had participated in the 2005 selection as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra but had not been selected, could seek appointment or any relief in 2015 and thereafter, especially after the post itself had been abolished in 2006.
The Court first noted the undisputed facts. The appellant had taken part in the 2005 selection process for Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The selection was concluded and candidates were appointed. The appellant did not challenge anything at that time and, in the words used in the judgment, “slept over the matter”.
On 01.07.2006, the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service) Rules, 2006 came into force. From that date, the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was abolished and replaced by the post of Panchayat Shikshak. This change was central to the Court’s reasoning.
The appellant woke up to the issue only in 2015, a decade after the selection. Upon seeking RTI information on 17.06.2015, he came to believe that those appointed had obtained lower marks than him and that he had thus been wrongly denied the post in 2005.
The Division Bench traced the procedural history of his attempts to obtain relief. It recorded that the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Saran dismissed Appeal No.2017 on 26.09.2018 for want of jurisdiction since the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra post no longer existed. The State Appellate Authority dismissed Appeal No.689 of 2018 on 27.02.2019, citing the Full Bench judgment in Kalpana Rani.
When the matter reached the Single Judge in CWJC No.10606 of 2019, that Court had examined the Full Bench decision in detail. The Single Judge reproduced important portions of Kalpana Rani, including paragraphs 26, 30, 106, 114 and 118. These extracts underlined that once the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was abolished from 01.07.2006, no one could claim appointment on that post or absorption as Panchayat Teacher on the basis of prior empanelment or old selection disputes.
The Division Bench quoted the Single Judge’s conclusion that, because the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra had already been abolished with effect from 01.07.2006, no appointment could be made and no dispute about that post could be adjudicated in terms of the 2006 Rules. The Single Judge had also held the writ petition to be barred by principles of delay and laches.
In the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench independently evaluated these findings. It reiterated that the appellant had participated in the selection process of 2005, did nothing for years, and only raised his grievance in 2015. By then, the legal position had fundamentally changed.
The Court emphasised that with the coming into force of the 2006 Rules on 01.07.2006, the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra ceased to exist. As there was no longer any such post, no appointment could be ordered on it, and no authority could lawfully reopen selection disputes concerning that abolished post.
The Bench further noted that, even leaving aside the abolition of the post, the appellant’s challenge suffered from extreme delay. For this, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that grievances relating to selection and appointment must be raised within a reasonable period, which it indicated to be about six months from the date of the cause of action. The Division Bench observed that, in contrast, the appellant had invoked legal remedies after around a decade from the 2005 selection.
Applying this principle, the Court held that the appellant’s claim was hopelessly time-barred. This long delay alone was sufficient to deny him relief, even without considering other aspects.
Combining both lines of reasoning, the Division Bench concluded that the appeal deserved to be dismissed on two counts: first, because of delay and laches; and second, because of the binding Full Bench decision in Kalpana Rani which made clear that no appointments or disputes could be entertained in relation to the abolished post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra after 01.07.2006.
Having carefully examined the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench stated that it found no error in it. The appeal filed by the appellant therefore failed and was dismissed. The Court did not award any costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for candidates who have complaints about old recruitment processes, especially for posts that have been abolished or replaced by new schemes.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that if a person feels wrongly denied an appointment, they must act within a reasonable time. Waiting for many years, as in this case, can close the doors of the Court, even if they later discover information through RTI.
The decision also confirms that once a post like Panchayat Shiksha Mitra is abolished and new Rules come into force, courts and authorities cannot revive that post indirectly by ordering appointments or entertaining disputes about it.
For many teaching aspirants and government job seekers in Bihar, this ruling is a reminder that legal remedies must be pursued quickly and in line with the existing service rules.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can a candidate who participated in the 2005 selection for Panchayat Shiksha Mitra seek appointment or challenge others’ appointments after 01.07.2006, when the post has been abolished, and after a delay of about ten years?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that after abolition of the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra post under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service) Rules, 2006, no one can be appointed to that post or raise disputes regarding it. Further, such challenges must be filed within a reasonable time and a decade-long delay is barred by delay and laches.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Kalpana Rani v. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2014 (2) PLJR 665 (Full Bench of Patna High Court).
- P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271.
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No.714 of 2019 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10606 of 2019
Case Title: Sudhir Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (4) PLJR 921
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy
Date of Judgment: 25.08.2022
Advocates:
- For the Appellant: Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan, Advocate.
- For the Respondents: Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, AC to AAG-13.
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of writ petition (service/recruitment dispute concerning Panchayat Shiksha Mitra selection).
Link to the Judgment: Full text of Patna High Court judgment
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.
