Dismissed¶35

Sanjay Ram v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Feb 2025L.P.A/710/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Laches / delay-and-limitation bar; Panchayat Teacher selection (Bihar) concluded 2006; belated 2011 appeal rejected by District Teachers Appellate Authority on ground of laches; C.W.J.C. No.6126 of 2013 dismissed by learned Single Judge on 24.11.2021; Letters Patent Appeal No.710 of 2021 dismissed on 10-02-2025; concluded recruitment process protected; indolent/lethargic litigant; fraud and bungling allegations with F.I.R. against Panchayat Niyojan Unit functionaries did not disturb appointments; appointees served 18-19 years; Bench: Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ (author) and Partha Sarthy, J; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Entertaining the appellant's appeal at that late stage would have 'definitely upturned the apple cart'; therefore the Bench found no fault with the District Teachers Appellate Authority in non-suiting the appellant on grounds of delay.

Sanjay Ram Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the District Teachers Appellate Authority acted correctly in refusing, on grounds of laches/delay, to entertain the appellant's appeal preferred about five years after the 2006 Panchayat Teacher selection concluded. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

¶27

Ratio / Principle

As well-settled law, the Court must examine whether the petitioner/appellant has been indolent, lethargic or unconcerned about his own rights; entertaining any petition after a long lapse of time brings in its train inconsistencies and confusion which would upset an entire process taken to a logical conclusion.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court — Letters Patent Appeal No.710 of 2021 (in re Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6126 of 2013); Sanjay Ram v. The State of Bihar & Ors.; decided 10-02-2025; Coram: Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ (authored the oral judgment) with Partha Sarthy, J; NAFR. The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in the Panchayat Teacher selection concluded in 2006, approached the District Teachers Appellate Authority only in 2011 (about five years later); the Authority refused to entertain the appeal on the ground of laches. His writ petition (C.W.J.C. No.6126 of 2013) was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 24.11.2021. In this appeal the Bench held: (i) entertaining an appeal at that late stage would have 'definitely upturned the apple cart', and no fault lay with the DTAA in non-suiting the appellant; (ii) per well-settled law, the Court must test whether a claimant has been indolent, lethargic or unconcerned, since entertaining petitions after a long lapse breeds inconsistency and confusion and would upset a process taken to a logical conclusion. Context recorded: the appointees had rendered services for 18 to 19 years, and although fraud/bungling allegations had led to an F.I.R. against some Panchayat Niyojan Unit functionaries, the appointments were never disturbed. The appeal was dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.710 of 2021 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6126 of 2013

¶3

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

¶4

Sanjay Ram, Son of Jeeta Ram, Resident of Village- Ubhawa Sargunja, P.S. Panapur, District- Saran (Chapra).

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

The District Teachers Appellate Authority, Saran at Chapra.

¶9

Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Chakia, P.S. and Block Panapur, DistrictSaran (Chapra).

¶10

Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Chakia, P.S. and Block Panapur, District- Saran (Chapra).

¶11

Radhey Shyam Paswan Son of Ambika Manjhi Resident of VillageSerukahan, P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Siwan.

¶12

Kanhaiya Ram Son of Raghunath Ram Resident of Village- Khajuri, P.S.Panapur, District- Saran, Chapra.

¶13

Lalan Ram Son of Shivji Ram Resident of Village- Chakia, P.S. Panapur, District- Saran at Chapra.

¶14

The Principal Secretary, Vigilance Deptt., Bihar, Patna.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Subodh Prasad, Advocate Mr. Kapil Deo Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Verma (AAG-3) Mr. Saroj Kr. Sharma, AC to AAG-3 Dr. Anand Kumar, AC to AAG-3 For the Resp. nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶17

Date : 10-02-2025

¶18

Heard Mr. Subodh Prasad, the learned

¶19

Advocate for the appellant, Mr. P.K. Verma, the learned

¶20

Patna High Court L.P.A No.710 of 2021 dt.10-02-2025 2/4

¶21

AAG-3 for the State, Mr. Gyan Prakash, the learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Advocate for the Vigilance Department.

¶22

The appellant was an unsuccessful candidate in the selection of Panchayat Teacher which was concluded in the year 2006. Against such exclusion of the appellant from being considered favourably and appointed, he preferred an appeal before the District Teachers Appellate Authority in 2011, after a lapse of about five years. The District Teachers Appellate Authority did not entertain the petition on the ground of laches.

¶23

The appellant challenged the order of the District Teachers Appellate Authority before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 6126 of 2013, which too was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.11.2021.

¶24

It appears from the records that the selection process was concluded in 2006. The appointees have been rendering their services for the last 18 to 19

¶25

Patna High Court L.P.A No.710 of 2021 dt.10-02-2025 3/4

¶26

years. There had been allegations in the past that the entire process was vitiated by fraud and bungling, but notwithstanding the lodging of the F.I.R. against some of the functionaries of the Panchayat Niyojan Units, the appointment of those teachers were never disturbed.

¶27

Entertaining any appeal by the District Teachers Appellate Authority at that late stage would have definitely upturned the apple cart and, therefore, we do not find any fault with the decision of the District Teachers Appellate Authority in non-suiting the appellant.

¶28

The learned Single Judge also agreed with the view of the District Teachers Appellate Authority.

¶29

The law is well-settled that the Court has to see whether the petitioner/appellant has been indolent or lethargic or unconcerned about his own rights. Entertaining any petition after a long lapse of time would only bring in its train more inconsistencies and confusion which would upset the entire process which was taken to a logical conclusion.

¶30

Patna High Court L.P.A No.710 of 2021 dt.10-02-2025 4/4

¶31