Dismissed¶55

Md Aslam Ali Quadri @ Md. Aslam Ali Kadri v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC25 Feb 2026L.P.A/290/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Panchayat Teacher appointment; cancellation of selection; B.D.O. Baheri order dated 04.04.2008; District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Darbhanga; Objection Case No. 674 of 2009; jurisdiction to appeal against B.D.O. order; Rule 18 Employment Rules 2006; Notification No. 3148 dated 25.08.2008; Amarnath Keshari and Narendra Kumar Jha 2018 (4) PLJR 660; State Appeal No. 144 of 2018; fresh counselling; merit list serial nos. 36 and 37; L.P.A. No. 290 of 2025 dismissed; Patna High Court.

What did the court decide?

The legal point already decided in Amarnath Keshari and Narendra Kumar Jha — that the Tribunal had no power to hear or decide an issue already decided by its predecessor body (the B.D.O.) — is applicable to the case in hand, and the learned Single Judge was quite justified in applying that ratio. ¶54

Md Aslam Ali Quadri @ Md. Aslam Ali Kadri Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the State Appellate Authority correctly allowed State Appeal No. 144 of 2018 on the ground that the District Teacher Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal against the order of the B.D.O., resulting in quashing of the orders dated 08.12.2009 and 04.04.2008, cancellation of the petitioner's selection and direction for fresh counselling. +2 more

¶30

Ratio / Principle

¶54

Key takeaways

There is no perversity in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, and the Division Bench is not inclined to interfere with it.ratio¶54
Endorsing the learned Single Judge's reasoning, the Division Bench found no illegality in the order passed by the State Appellate Authority, which had been passed after considering this Court's decision in Amarnath Kesri and Narendra Kumar Jha (supra).ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal (Patna High Court) against the order dated 08.05.2024 of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10380 of 2019 dismissing the writ petition of a Panchayat Teacher of Baghouni Gram Panchayat, Baheri (appointed on 16.01.2007 through the second panel list). His selection had been cancelled by the Bihar State Appellate Authority in State Appeal No. 144 of 2018, allowed on the ground that the District Teacher Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal against the order of the B.D.O.; the State Appellate Authority quashed the orders dated 08.12.2009 (Objection/Appeal Case No. 674 of 2009) and 04.04.2008 (B.D.O., Baheri) and directed fresh counselling inviting candidates above them in the merit list. Rule 18 of the Employment Rules, 2006, amended by Notification No. 3148 dated 25.08.2008, had replaced the B.D.O. with a District Level Authority without specifying that appeals against B.D.O. orders lay to it. Following Amarnath Keshari and Narendra Kumar Jha, 2018 (4) PLJR 660 (Tribunal had no power to hear or decide an issue already decided by its predecessor body), the Division Bench found no perversity in the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.290 of 2025 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10380 of 2019

¶3

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

¶4

Md Aslam Ali Quadri @ Md. Aslam Ali Kadri Son of Haroon Rasid Ansari Resident of Village- Chakka, P.S.- Baheri, Dist.-Darbhanga.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Primary Education, Education Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Programme Officer, Darbhanga.

¶9

The Block Development Officer, Baheri, P.S. Baheri, District- Darbhanga.

¶10

The Block Education Officer, Baheri, P.S.- Baheri, District- Darbhanga.

¶11

The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Baghouni, P.S. and Block Baheri, District- Darbhanga.

¶12

The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Baghouni, P.S and Block Baheri, DistrictDarbhanga.

¶13

Wakil Ahmad, son of Abdul Hakim, Resident of Village- Kumai, P.O.- Nari, P.S.- Ghanshyampur District- Darbhanga.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

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

¶16

Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶19

Date : 25-02-2026

¶20

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant Md Aslam Ali Quadri @ Md. Aslam Ali Kadri, who was the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 08.05.2024 of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10380 of 2019.

¶21

The writ petition was filed by the appellant-writ

¶22

Patna High Court L.P.A No.290 of 2025 dt.25-02-2026 2/9

¶23

petitioner for setting aside the order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the learned State Appellate Authority, Patna in Appeal No.144/2018, whereby and whereunder the order dated 08.12.2009 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Authority, Darbhanga’) in Case No. 674 of 2009 was quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and employment of the petitioner was cancelled and the Panchayat Employment Unit was directed to hold fresh counselling inviting the respondent no.7 to the writ petition, so also to the petitioner and other candidates above them in the merit list intimating the date, time and venue of counselling and the Block Development Officer, Baheri was directed to get the entire process completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶24

It is the case of the writ petitioner that in the year 2006, he along with others applied for appointment as Panchayat Teacher in Baghouni Gram Panchayat, within Baheri Panchayat. Total 14 numbers of post of teachers were notified in the advertisement, out of which 10 posts were of Hindi Teachers and 4 seats were for Urdu Teachers. The Pnchayat prepared the merit list as per the marks of the applicants and the petitioner

¶25

Patna High Court L.P.A No.290 of 2025 dt.25-02-2026 3/9

¶26

was placed at serial no.37, whereas the respondent no.7 was placed at serial no.36. Thereafter the counselling was held, which was completed and six persons turned up for certificate verification and submitted their consent and accordingly, they were issued joining letters. Eight posts remained vacant, for which second panel list was prepared for eight persons, including the petitioner on 10.01.2007 and then after the counselling, verification of certificate and consent, the appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, he submitted his joining on 16.01.2007. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent no.7 submitted an application before the Block Development Officer, Baheri on 23.01.2008, which was entertained and without issuing any show-cause to the petitioner and giving him opportunity of hearing, order was passed on 04.04.2008 whereunder the selection of the petitioner was cancelled and the authorities were directed to appoint respondent no.7.

¶27

Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 04.04.2008, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 10269 of 2008, which was disposed of on 28.10.2009 and liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the District Appellate Authority. In pursuance of such order passed by this Court, the petitioner

¶28

Patna High Court L.P.A No.290 of 2025 dt.25-02-2026 4/9

¶29

approached the Appellate Authority, Darbhanga and the Appeal No. 674 of 2009 was registered and in the said appeal, order dated 04.04.2008 passed by the Block Development Officer, Baheri was set aside and the petitioner was reinstated in service.

¶30

Respondent no.7 challenged the order dated 08.12.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Darbhanga before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2162 of 2010 and the same was disposed of on 13.11.2017 giving liberty to him to approach the Bihar State Appellate Authority, Patna and accordingly, respondent no.7 filed State Appeal No. 144 of 2018, which was allowed mainly on the ground that the District Teacher Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal against the order of B.D.O. and accordingly, the State Appellate Authority quashed the order dated 08.12.2009 and 04.04.2008 and cancelled the selection of the petitioner and further directed the respondent Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary to hold fresh counselling, inviting the appellant, respondent no.7 and other candidates above them in the merit list intimating the date, time and venue of counselling.

¶31

The main grounds that were taken by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition as to whether the entertainment of the application of respondent

¶32

Patna High Court L.P.A No.290 of 2025 dt.25-02-2026 5/9

¶33

no.7 belatedly was justified when he failed to get appointment in his Panchayat by the Block Development Officer, inter alia with other grounds.

¶34

Counter affidavits were filed by respondent no.2 and also respondent no. 7 and replies to the counter affidavits, filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 7, were also filed by the petitioner.

¶35

In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.7, the main ground that has been taken is on the earlier occasion the Block Development Officer was the Appellate Authority under Rule 18 of the Employment Rules, 2006, which was amended vide Notification No. 3148 dated 25.08.2008 replacing the B.D.O. by a District Level Authority consisting of one or more members appointed by the State Government having power to lay appeal related to employment and other service conditions under the Rules.

¶36

The amendment does not specify that the District Authority shall hear appeal against the order passed by the B.D.O.

¶37

In the case of Amarnath Keshari and Narendra Kumar Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. , reported in, 2018 (4) PLJR 660 , it has been held that the Tribunal had no power to

¶38

Patna High Court L.P.A No.290 of 2025 dt.25-02-2026 6/9

¶39

hear or decide the issue which has already been decided by the predecessor body.

¶40

The learned Single Judge after going through the

¶41

pleadings and hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties has been pleased to hold as follows:

¶42

“9. That after getting knowledge about the illegal appointment of petitioner, the respondent no.7 approached the Mukhiya but of no avail. Finding no way the respondent no.7 has filed a petition before the Block Development Officer (the then appellate authority), who after hearing the parties passed as order dated 04.04.2008 to appoint the respondent no.7 as Panchayat Teacher and communicated through Memo No.1059 dated 08.05.2008 to all concerned. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Block Development Officer dated 04.04.2008, being Objection Case No.674 of 2009 before the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Darbhanga. The respondent no.7 appeared before the Tribunal and filed his reply. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, set aside the order of the Block Development Officer dated 04.04.2008 vide order dated 08.12.2009 contained in memo no.1543 dated 16.12.2009 and the same order is illegal passed without jurisdiction.

¶43

Patna High Court L.P.A No.290 of 2025 dt.25-02-2026

¶44

7/9

¶45

10. The appointment of the petitioner was illegal and it was not necessary to hear him before passing any order. It is submitted that it is well settled law that on the earlier occasion, the B.D.O. was Appellate Authority under Rule 18 of Employment Rules, 2006. Rule 18 was amended by Notification No.3148 dated 25.08.2008 replacing the B.D.O. by a District Level authority consisting of one or more members appointed by the State Government having power to lay appeals related to employment and other service condition under the Rules. The amendment dated 25.08.208 did not says that the District Authority will hear appeal against the order passed by the B.D.O.

¶46

11. Respondent no.7 had no option than to challenge the order of District Appellate Authority by filing CWJC No.2162 of 2010 which was disposed of by order dated 13.11.2017 with liberty to approach the Bihar State Appellate Authority, Bihar. The respondent no.7 filed the appeal before the State Appellate Authority against the impugned order dated 08.12.2009 passed in Objection Case No.674/2009 by the Members of the District Teachers Engagement Appellate Authority, Darbhanga. Learned counsel for the respondent no.7 further submitted that the District Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to sit in

¶47

Patna High Court L.P.A No.290 of 2025 dt.25-02-2026 8/9

¶48

appeal against order of B.D.O. and this Hon’ble Court held in the case of Amarnath Kesri and Narendra Kumar Jha; 2018(4) PLJR 660 that “Tribunal had no power to hear or decide the issue which has already been decided by the predecessor body”.

¶49

12. Considering the arguments of the parties, on perusal of the record and on going through the order of the State Appellate Authority, it is clear that the State Appellate Authority has passed order after considering the order of this Court passed in Amarnath Kesri and Narendra Kumar Jha (supra), which held that Tribunal had no power to hear or decide the issue which has already been decided by the predecessor body i.e. B.D.O.,which was the adjudicatory forum prior to constitution of tribunal.”

¶50

After giving the reasoning, as mentioned in the above paragraphs, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to hold that there is no illegality in the order passed by the State Appellate Authority.

¶51

When this matter was taken up on the last date i.e. on 02.02.2026, we made a query to the learned counsel for the appellant as to what perversity existed in the order of the learned Single Judge, since the same was passed taking into

¶52

Patna High Court L.P.A No.290 of 2025 dt.25-02-2026 9/9

¶53

account the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Amarnath Keshari and Narendra Kumar Jha (supra), the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the factual scenario in the Amarnath Keshari and Narendra Kumar Jha (supra ) is completely different from the case in hand.

¶54

However, since the legal point has already been decided in the said case, which is also applicable in the case in hand, we are of the humble view that in the factual scenario, the learned Single Judge is quite justified in applying the ratio laid down in the case of Amarnath Keshari and Narendra Kumar Jha (supra) in this case and since there is no perversity in the impugned order, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶55

Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal stands

¶56

dismissed.

¶57

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

¶58

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶59

uday/-

¶60

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	27.02.2026
Transmission Date	NA

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 08.05.2024 of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10380 of 2019, whereby the writ petition was rejected and no illegality was found in the order passed by the State Appellate Authority.¶20
Patna High Court (learned Single Judge) · 08.05.2024
Prior proceeding
In 2006 the writ petitioner applied for appointment as Panchayat Teacher in Baghouni Gram Panchayat, within Baheri Panchayat; 14 posts were notified (10 Hindi, 4 Urdu).¶24
Prior proceeding
In the merit list prepared by the Panchayat, the petitioner was placed at serial no.37 and respondent no.7 at serial no.36.¶26
Prior proceeding
After counselling on the first panel, a second panel list of eight persons including the petitioner was prepared on 10.01.2007; the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner, who joined on 16.01.2007.¶26
Prior proceeding
Following respondent no.7's application dated 23.01.2008 to the B.D.O., Baheri, the B.D.O. passed order dated 04.04.2008 (communicated by Memo No.1059 dated 08.05.2008) cancelling the petitioner's selection and directing appointment of respondent no.7, without show-cause or hearing to the petitioner.¶26
Prior proceeding
The petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 10269 of 2008, which was disposed of on 28.10.2009 with liberty to approach the District Appellate Authority.¶27
Prior proceeding
In Appeal No. 674 of 2009 before the Appellate Authority, Darbhanga, the B.D.O.'s order dated 04.04.2008 was set aside (order dated 08.12.2009) and the petitioner was reinstated in service.¶29
Prior proceeding
As recited by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner's appeal was registered as Objection Case No.674 of 2009 before the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Darbhanga, which set aside the B.D.O.'s order dated 04.04.2008 vide order dated 08.12.2009 contained in memo no.1543 dated 16.12.2009.¶42
Prior proceeding
Respondent no.7 challenged the order dated 08.12.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 2162 of 2010, disposed of on 13.11.2017 with liberty to approach the Bihar State Appellate Authority, Patna.¶30
Prior proceeding
Respondent no.7 filed State Appeal No. 144 of 2018, which was allowed mainly on the ground that the District Teacher Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal against the order of the B.D.O.; the State Appellate Authority quashed the orders dated 08.12.2009 and 04.04.2008, cancelled the petitioner's selection and directed the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary to hold fresh counselling inviting the appellant, respondent no.7 and other candidates above them in the merit list.¶30

Md Aslam Ali Quadri @ Md. Aslam Ali Kadri v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md Aslam Ali Quadri @ Md. Aslam Ali Kadri v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anupam Kumar Suman Vs The Union of India

Jagdish Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Sheo Murat Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Md Idrish Vs The State of Bihar

Pradeep Kumar Shah Vs The State of Bihar

Rastriya Amar Yuva Shahid Ramgovind Singh Janta Jagrit Aandolan Vs The State of Bihar