Safiya Malik

The High Court of Patna Single Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Sinha set aside orders of the district and state teachers’ appellate authorities and restored the appointment status of two women Panchayat teachers from Buxar, directing the State to accept their joining and extend consequential service benefits within 15 days. The dispute arose after the district appellate authority, having earlier allowed their claim and directed acceptance of joining, later reopened and recalled its own final order, and the state appellate authority upheld that action while rejecting the teachers’ appeal. The Court held that a judicial or quasi-judicial body can review its decision only when a statute expressly confers such power, and that the relevant framework did not do so.

The writ petition arose from a dispute concerning the appointment of Panchayat Teachers under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. The petitioners had been appointed pursuant to a selection process conducted against sanctioned and vacant posts, following counselling and verification, and were issued appointment letters by the competent authority. Subsequently, objections were raised regarding the legality of their appointments.

Also Read: Unnao Rape: Supreme Court Stays Delhi High Court Bail Order Granting Relief To Kuldeep Singh Sengar

The matter was placed before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Buxar, which by order dated 09.10.2014 allowed the petitioners’ claim and directed acceptance of their joining. Thereafter, the same authority passed a subsequent order dated 25.01.2016 recalling and reviewing its earlier final order on the ground of alleged error. The petitioners challenged the recall order before the State Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Bihar, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the District Authority’s decision by order dated 24.08.2017.

Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of both orders, contending that the District Appellate Authority had no statutory power to review or recall its own final order under the 2006 Rules and the Guidelines of 2008. The respondents defended the action on the premise that the authority possessed incidental powers to correct illegality and relied upon provisions introduced subsequently under the Rules of 2020.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing appointments and appellate remedies under the Rules of 2006 and the Guidelines of 2008 and recorded that “the Rules lay down the procedure for selection and appointment of teachers, regulate their service conditions, and provide for adjudication of disputes by the designated Appellate Authority.” It noted that the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority was confined to hearing and deciding appeals relating to appointment disputes.

The Court observed that “the Rules do not contain any provision either express or by necessary implication conferring upon the Appellate Authority the power to review, recall or reopen its own final order once the same has been passed.” It reiterated the settled principle that the power of review is not inherent and must be statutorily conferred.

Relying on binding precedent, the Court quoted the Supreme Court to reiterate that “the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication.” Applying this principle, the Court stated that once the final order dated 09.10.2014 was passed, “the Authority became functus officio.”

Addressing the respondents’ reliance on the Rules of 2020, the Court recorded that “the power of review was explicitly introduced for the first time under Rule 15 of the Rules of 2020,” and held that the express introduction of such power clearly demonstrated its absence under the earlier regime. The Court further observed that “the power of review being substantive in nature cannot be applied retrospectively so as to validate actions taken at a point of time when no such power existed.”

The Court concluded that the State Appellate Authority had proceeded on an erroneous assumption of jurisdiction and that both impugned orders were without statutory foundation.

Also Read: Strike Participation Alone Not Ground For Termination, Due Process Mandatory: Patna High Court Quashes University Staff Termination, Orders Reinstatement Over Strike Absence

The Court recorded that “the impugned order dated 25.01.2016 passed by District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Buxar in Case No. 04 of 2013 and order dated 24.08.2017 passed by State Appellate Tribunal, Bihar in Appeal No. 83 of 2017 cannot be sustained” and accordingly “is hereby set aside.”

“The respondents are directed to accept the joining of both the petitioners as per the order dated 09.10.2014 passed by the District Teacher Appellate Authority, Buxar. Pursuant to their appointments, the respondents are further directed to grant all consequential benefits to which the petitioners would be legally entitled to with effect from the date of issuance of their appointment letters.”

 The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of fifteen days from the date of passing of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms,” and “all pending interlocutory application(s) stands disposed of,” with “no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. B. Singh, Standing Counsel–28

Case Title: Kumari Bandana & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15887 of 2017
Bench: Justice Alok Kumar Sinha