Runa Devi, v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Feb 2026CWJC/7084/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; Assistant Teacher; Bihar primary education; Matric Untrained pay scale; Diploma in Elementary Education (ODL) 2013-15; RTE Act 2009 three-year training mandate; removal order Memo No. 2563 dated 15.07.2023; District Education Officer East Champaran; parity with identically situated reinstated teachers; reinstatement with consequential benefits; CWJC 7084 of 2025; CWJC 9789 of 2025; Md. Ataur Rahman CWJC No. 16214 of 2019; Harish Kumar J; decision date 10-02-2026.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions allowed; impugned order Memo No. 2563 dated 15.07.2023 set aside qua the petitioners; petitioners directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits as extended to other identically situated persons in terms of the afore noted order. ¶¶46

Runa Devi, Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the removal of the petitioners from service by Memo No. 2563 dated 15.07.2023 for failure to pass the Teachers Training (Diploma in Elementary Education ODL) examination should be set aside, notwithstanding that identically situated removed teachers had already had the same order set aside and had been reinstated. +1 more

¶¶33

Court's answer

The impugned order contained in Memo No. 2563 dated 15.07.2023 is set aside qua the petitioners in both writ petitions.

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners are to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, at par with the benefits extended to other identically situated persons, in terms of the earlier coordinate-bench order.

¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Harish Kumar, J), oral judgment dated 10-02-2026, in connected CWJC Nos. 7084 and 9789 of 2025: allowed the petitions of two compassionately appointed Assistant Teachers removed from service by Memo No. 2563 dated 15.07.2023 of the District Education Officer, East Champaran, for failing to clear the Diploma in Elementary Education (ODL) examination, whose October-November 2018 examination/result of 31.03.2019 was fixed by the Department as the last chance and after which they were given no further opportunity. Relying on the earlier orders of coordinate Benches (Annexure P/9 series) in identical cases (CWJC Nos. 3484 of 2024, 6679 of 2024, 16767 of 2023, 17297 of 2023) where the same removal order had been set aside on the ground that the authorities, and not the teachers, had failed to provide the mandated training/examination opportunities, the Court set aside the impugned order qua these petitioners and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits at par with other identically situated persons already reinstated. The State's case — that continuance was impermissible under the RTE Act, 2009 three-year training mandate and was taken in compliance with CWJC No. 16214 of 2019 [Md. Ataur Rahman & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.] — did not prevail.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7084 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Runa Devi, Wife of Late Jokhan Ram, Resident of village- Sisavaniya, P. O.Ramgarhwa, P. S.- Ram garhwa, District- East Champaran-845433.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Director (Primary Education), Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶8

The District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶9

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), East Champaran, Motihari.

¶10

The Headmaster, Middle School, Ramgarhwa Kanya, East Champaran, Motihari .

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

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

¶13

with

¶14

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9789 of 2025

¶15

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

¶16

Rajiv Kumar Son of Late Chandrashekhar Mishra Resident of VillageDamodarpur, P.S.- Areraj, District- East Champaran- 845425.

¶17

... ... Petitioner/s

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State of Bihar through the Director (Primary Education), Bihar, Patna.

¶20

The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶21

The District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶22

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), East Champaran, Motihari.

¶23

The Headmaster, Up Graded Middle School, Barai Tola (East), BlockAreraj, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶24

... ... Respondent/s

¶25

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

¶26

Appearance : (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7084 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr.Lal Mani Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Yadav, SC 18 Mr. AC to SC 18 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9789 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr.Lal Mani Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC 25 Mr. AC to SC 25

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

Date : 10-02-2026

¶30

Heard the parties.

¶31

The petitioners in both the writ petitions are

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.7084 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026 2/5

¶33

aggrieved with the common order as contained in Memo No. 2563 dated 15.07.2023 issued under the signature of the District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari, the respondent No. 3, by which they have been removed from their services with effect from the date of issuance of the said order.

¶34

The facts are admitted to the extent that on the recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, the petitioners were duly appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Matric Untrained pay scale of Rs.30504590/- and was posted in the respective allotted schools. Since the petitioners were appointed as Untrained Teacher, hence subsequently they were registered in Diploma in Elementary Education (ODL) courses for the session 2013-15 through the Department itself. The Examination of the ODL was conducted in October-November, 2018 which was the last examination and the result was published on 31.03.2019 which was decided by the Department to be the last chance for the training. Thereafter, the petitioners and others have never been allowed to complete the examination and now in the meantime, the impugned order contained in Memo No. 2563 dated 15.07.2023 came to be passed and the petitioners have been removed from their services.

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.7084 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026 3/5

¶36

Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that by the impugned order altogether 11 persons have been removed from their services, who were appointed on compassionate ground, but they could not pass their Teachers Training Examination. Aggrieved with the afore noted order, some of the Assistant Teachers namely, Mritunjay Kumar, Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Mala Kumari @ Mala Devi and Mohammad Istyak Alam have approached this Court by filing separate writ petition bearing CWJC Nos.3484 of 2024, 6679 of 2024, 16767 of 2023 and 17297 of 2023, respectively. A Bench of this Court having considered the fact that the petitioners are not at fault, rather the respondent authorities had not acted as per the guidelines and not extended the opportunity to appear in Diploma in Elementary Education (OLD) Examination inspite of the fact that according to the guidelines the Trainee Teachers were granted more opportunity to clear examination, set aside the impugned order vide different orders; copies of the orders have been placed on record as Annexure P/9 series. Referring to the afore noted order, on instruction, it is further contended that now the petitioners of those writ petitions have been reinstated to their services and they have been discharging their duties but discrimination has been caused and the

¶37

Patna High Court CWJC No.7084 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026 4/5

¶38

petitioners have been left in lurch by removing them from their services.

¶39

On the other hand, learned Senior

¶40

Advocate/Advocate for the State submitted that under the provision of RTE Act, 2009 it has become mandatory for all untrained teachers to acquire training one way or another within a stipulated three years period. However, since the petitioners have not passed the Teachers Training Examination, hence their continuance as Assistant Teacher is wholly bad in law. The entire action has been taken in compliance with the order passed in CWJC No. 16214 of 2019 [Md. Ataur Rahman & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.].

¶41

This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and also took note of the facts, especially the order passed by this Court whereby the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 2563 dated 15.07.2023 came to be set aside by holding as follows:

¶42

“6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials available on record, it is not in dispute that the teachers appointed on compassionate ground were given opportunity for training but at no point of time the petitioner was provided such opportunity for

¶43

Patna High Court CWJC No.7084 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026

¶44

5/5

¶45

training by sending the petitioner for training like other teachers appointed on compassionate ground. More over, the teachers who have failed in passing the training examination, were/have been granted 2^nd opportunity to clear the examination. Even the teachers who failed in CET, were given three/four opportunities to clear the same but no opportunity has even been granted by the respondents to the petitioner to complete the training course by sending the petitioner for obtaining training from any training college.”

¶46

In view of the aforesaid facts and the position of law, this Court finds substance in the writ petitions and accordingly, the present writ petitions also stand allowed. The impugned order contained in Memo No. 2563 dated 15.07.2023 is hereby set aside qua the petitioners. The petitioners are also directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits as has been extended to other identically situated persons in terms with the afore noted order.

¶47

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶48

Anjani/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 12.02.2026 Transmission Date

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common order Memo No. 2563 dated 15.07.2023 issued under the signature of the District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari (respondent No. 3), removing the petitioners from service with effect from the date of issuance of the said order.¶¶33
District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari (respondent No. 3) · 15.07.2023
Prior proceeding
On the recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee the petitioners were appointed Assistant Teachers in the Matric Untrained pay scale and posted to their allotted schools.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
As untrained teachers the petitioners were registered by the Department in the Diploma in Elementary Education (ODL) course for session 2013-15; the ODL examination of October-November 2018 was the last examination, results published 31.03.2019 were declared by the Department to be the last chance, and the petitioners were thereafter never allowed to complete the examination.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
The State took the removal action stating compliance with the order in CWJC No. 16214 of 2019 [Md. Ataur Rahman & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.], asserting an RTE Act, 2009 mandate for untrained teachers to acquire training within three years.¶¶40
Prior proceeding
Per counsel, the impugned order removed altogether 11 compassionately appointed persons who could not pass their Teachers Training Examination.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Four identically situated removed Assistant Teachers — Mritunjay Kumar, Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Mala Kumari @ Mala Devi and Mohammad Istyak Alam — filed separate writ petitions bearing CWJC Nos. 3484 of 2024, 6679 of 2024, 16767 of 2023 and 17297 of 2023 respectively.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
A Bench of this Court found those petitioners not at fault, held the authorities had not followed the guidelines nor extended examination opportunities, and set aside the impugned order vide different orders (Annexure P/9 series); on instructions counsel stated those petitioners have since been reinstated and are discharging duties, while the present petitioners were left without comparable relief.¶¶36

Runa Devi, v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Runa Devi, v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumari Babli Vs The State of Bihar

Kaushal Kumar Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Maya Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Mithila Teachers Training College Vs The State of Bihar

Brajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar