Anita Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binoy Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Sweta Raj, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Smt.Binita Singh -SC28 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶10

4 07-07-2026

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶12

counsel for the State.

¶13

The instant writ petition has been filed for the

¶14

following reliefs:-

¶15

(i) Whether the respondents are legal and justified in not giving seniority on the post of headmistress?

¶16

(ii) Whether the respondents are legal and justified in not paying the pay scale of an headmistress from the date of her juniors are enjoying?

¶17

(iii) Whether the whole action of the respondents are otherwise bad in law and it is fit to be rejected?

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon

¶19

the observations made by Division Bench submits that the issues

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.25098 of 2018(4) dt.07-07-2026 2/4

¶21

with regard to qualification of seven years of teaching experience in a government run school has already been addressed by the Division Bench still for the same and similar reasons the benefits, which accrues to this petitioner on account of the petitioner having discharged the duties of headmistress from the date of her juniors are enjoying, the benefits of the said post has been withheld, while the issues raised have already been considered by the Division Bench and there is an observation that the Hon’ble Court did not propose to go through all such issues at belated stage as the same has been raised without any supportive materials. For better perusal the observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench is as re-produced hereunder:-

¶22

From perusal of the order passed in M.J.C. No.1581 of 1998 it is quite apparent that this Hon'ble Court has merely said that the claim of the petitioner i.e. Dr. Sudha Kumari shall be considered in the light of the order disposing of the letters patent appeal filed by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge. The claim of the State of Bihar and the intervenor that Anita Kumari (respondent no.1 in the L.P.A.) does not possess the as a requisite qualification for appointment Headmistress is a new fact and that was not pleaded by the State of Bihar or for that matter by Dr. Sudha Kumari along with other persons then they had moved this Court in the earlier writ application and in fact it has been raised for the first time in the contempt application filed by Dr. Sudha Kumari. Even at that stage, the first show cause filed by Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Director, Secondary Education, Govt.

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.25098 of 2018(4) dt.07-07-2026 3/4

¶24

of Bihar, Patna that there was no such pleadings and averment and it is only in the second show cause the State has come out with such a plea and that too in a vague manner. The scope of letters patent appeal does not envisage that new fact which has been pleaded by the appellant of this case or by the intervenor, should be examined or or by the gone into by this Court. The State has raised these questions in the memo of appeal without giving any foundational facts, much less any documents to support their stand aforesaid. Likewise in the counter-affidavit filed in M.J.C. No.1581 of 1998, which is Annexure-X/4 to the intervention petition, it has merely been stated that Anita Kumari does not have seven any years minimum teaching experience from any recognised school without supporting their stance by any document or enquiry conducted to ascertain the truth. The question that the qualification of seven years teaching experience in a Government run school is a debatable question and we do not propose to go into that at this belated stage and more so, because of the fact that there are no materials before us to support the contention that Anita Kumari did not have the requisite qualifications. [emphasis supplied]

¶25

It has next been submitted by the counsel for the

¶26

petitioner that the order passed by Hon’ble Division Bench was put to challenge before Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 20962 of 2007 which was also dismissed and therefore, the issues with regard to this petitioner not having qualification of seven years of teaching experience in a government run school is not available to the respondents, to deny the benefits for want of such qualification, which issue has already been adjudicated in earlier

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.25098 of 2018(4) dt.07-07-2026 4/4

¶28

round of litigation.

¶29

Considering the fact that the issues of qualification have already been addressed and same has been indicated, this Court direct the respondents to take a final decision with regard to the benefits which accrues to this petitioner on account of the duties of Headmistress being discharged from the date of her appointment having been made with effect from 17.04.1996 and necessary decisions in this regard be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of representation and all such benefits which is at par with the others, will be made available to this petitioner within the time so allowed.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

(Ajit Kumar, J)

¶32

rajan/-

¶33

U

Anita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satrughan Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Dashanand Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Jay Prakash Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Vibha Pandey Vs The B. N. Mandal University, Lalu Nagar and Ors.

Birendra Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Nirmala Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.