Dismissed¶26

Subodh Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Feb 2026L.P.A/165/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Subodh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & others; Patna High Court, L.P.A No.165 of 2025 in C.W.J.C. No. 7566 of 2022; decided 23-02-2026; guest teacher salary claim for 05.07.2018-08.02.2022; Memo No. 09 dated 12.01.2022 (Director, Secondary Education); Lokayukta Complaint Case No.-33/2021 order dated 09.02.2022; counter affidavit para 18 by Kamlesh Kumar, DPO Munger; appeal held wholly misconceived and dismissed; coram: Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo (author) and Harish Kumar, J.; advocates: Chandrasekhar Sharma (appellant), Additional Advocate General (13) (respondents).

What did the court decide?

Since the writ petitioner has already been granted the relief sought in the writ petition, the present Letters Patent Appeal is wholly misconceived and is dismissed. ¶26

Subodh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.165 of 2025 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7566 of 2022

¶3

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

¶4

Subodh Kumar Singh son of Late Diwakar Prasad Singh, Resident of villageBora, P.O. Chaknathu, P.S. Amdanda, District- Bhagalpur.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

That Director, Secondary Education, Directorate Secondary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna.

¶9

The District Education Officer, Education Department, Munger, DistrictMunger.

¶10

The District Programme Officer (DPO), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan, Education Department, Munger.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandrasekhar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (13) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 23-02-2026

¶13

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Subodh Kumar Singh challenging the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7566 of 2022. The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶14

" (i) For issuance of writ or writs in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents concerned to pay the salary amount from 05.07.2018 to 08.02.2022 along with witnesses in view of Memo No. 09 dated

¶15

Patna High Court L.P.A No.165 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026 2/3

¶16

12.01.2022 issued by the Respondent No.-2, Director, Secondary Education, Patna as well as compensation amount for deliberate and knowingly harassing the petitioner debarring from legal service for the said post.

¶17

(ii) For holding and declaration that petitioner deserves to get the salary amount for the period 05.07.2018 to 08.02.2022 and the compensation amount in view of Memo No.-09 dated 12.01.2022 and in view of order dated 09.02.2022 passed by 'Lokayukta' in Complaint Case No.-33/2021."

¶18

2. In paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit filed by

¶19

Respondent No. 4 in C.W.J.C. No. 7566 of 2022, by one Kamlesh Kumar, District Programme Officer, Munger, it has been stated as follows:-

¶20

"18. That hence from the abovementioned facts and circumstances it is manifestly clear that the petitioner already paid for the period for which he gave his service as a guest teacher and there is no any other relief available to the petitioner which has to be fulfilled by the answering respondent. Therefore, the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to disallow this petition and dispose the same at the admission stage itself."

¶21

3. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the

¶22

aforesaid paragraph and, after due consideration, has passed the

¶23

Patna High Court L.P.A No.165 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026 3/3

¶24

impugned order. This position has not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

4. Since the writ petitioner has already been granted

¶26

the relief sought in the writ petition, the present Letters Patent Appeal is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.