Sarita Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.726 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Sarita Sinha Wife of Sri Kaushalendra Kumar, Resident of Village and P.O Husena, P.S.- Sarmera, District- Nalanda.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶7

The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶8

¶9

¶10

The District Education Officer, Nalanda.

¶11

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda.

¶12

The Block Education Officer, Sarmera, P.O. and P.S.- Sarmera, DistrictNalanda.

¶13

The Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee-cumPanchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Isua, Block- Sarmera, DistrictNalanda.

¶14

The Headmaster, New Primary School, Purani Isua, Block- Sarmera, District- Nalanda.

¶15

... ... Respondents

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶17

2 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶18

counsel for the Respondent-State.

¶19

The petitioner has prayed for the grant of following

¶20

relief:-

¶21

“That, this writ petition is for setting aside the order as contained in Letter No. 25 dated 17.06.2025 issued by Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee-cum-

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.726 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026 2/10

¶23

Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Isua, BlockSarmera within the district of Nalanda dispensing with her services on dictate of superior authority, which is nullity in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Purtabpore Co. Ltd. vs. Cane Commissioner Of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 1970 SC 1896 by stating that there are irregularities in her appointment without following required process, authority and basic requirement, which is mandatory, basic and an elementary law as well as further prayer for reinstatement of her service with back wages in terms of law settled by the Court of Law dealing moreover same and similar issues/ claims and for other necessary relief/ relief's on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case as stated, enumerated and discussed hereinafter.”

¶24

It is a case of the petitioner that the petitioner had

¶25

applied for engagement as Panchayat Teacher under Gram Panchayat Raj, Isua, Block-Sarmera within the district of

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.726 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026 3/10

¶27

Nalanda and being eligible her name was there in the list of successful candidates. However, the authority did not pay heed to the same and did not appoint the petitioner. Having no option left, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Appeal No. 348 of 2010 before the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Nalanda along with two other similarly situated persons, which was decided in favour of the petitioner with a direction to appoint the petitioner against the post of Panchayat Teacher within one month. As against this order passed by the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Nalanda, an appeal was preferred by the respondents before the State Appellate Authority bearing Appeal Case No. 572 of 2018 assailing the validity and correctness of the order passed by the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Nalanda. This appeal preferred by the respondents was dismissed on 20.08.2019 and the order of the District Teachers Appellate Authority stood affirmed.

¶28

It is the further case of the petitioner that in response to the order of the State Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna, the Block Education Officer, Sarmera issued Memo No. 19 dated 22.01.2020 addressed to the Headmaster of the school for compliance of the order and acceptance of her joining. In its compliance, the Panchayat Secretary-cum-Member Secretary,

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.726 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026 4/10

¶30

Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee, Gram Panchayat Raj, Isua, Block-Sarmera issued Memo No. 128 dated 03.02.2020 and posted the petitioner in New Primary School, Purani Isua, Block-Sarmera within the district of Nalanda. The petitioner submitted her joining before the headmaster of New Primary School, Purani Isua, Block-Sarmera which was accepted with necessary permission to execute work and since then the petitioner had been rendering her services till the impugned order of termination was passed.

¶31

The petitioner further submits that ex-mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Isua, Block-Sarmera made a complaint before the District Grievance Redressal Officer, Nalanda against the Block Education Officer, Sarmera in which he raised his voice against the alleged irregularities under the Block and disclosed the names of some teachers who as per the exmukhiya were working fraudulently under the Block and consequently, it is alleged that on extraneous consideration, the District Programme Officer Establishment, Nalanda issued Letter No. 919 and asked the petitioner for explanation whereas the name of the petitioner was not even there in the complaint. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner furnished her reply on 27.02.2025 by stating that her appointment was made

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.726 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026 5/10

¶33

on the basis of the order passed by the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Nalanda in Appeal Case No. 348 of 2010 as well as on the basis of the order of the State Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna in Appeal Case No. 572 of 2018 and that there was no irregularity in her appointment. The petitioner also pointed out in her reply that her name was not even figuring in complaint filed by the ex-mukhiya and, therefore, she was being unnecessarily harassed.

¶34

It is further submitted that the District Programme Officer, Establishment, Nalanda without considering the defence of the petitioner as well as without examining the genuineness of her appointment, issued Letter No. 1836 and directed the employment unit for necessary action to be taken against the petitioner but a copy of the said communication was never provided to the petitioner. In response to the said letter, the Panchayat Secretary-cum-Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee, Gram Panchayat Raj, Isua, BlockSarmera issued Memo No. 20 dated 28.04.2025 without any application of mind and asked the petitioner for explanation on the issue of her appointment, despite the fact that the petitioner was admittedly appointed pursuant to orders passed by the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Nalanda as well as in

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.726 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026 6/10

¶36

compliance of the State Appellate Authority’s order passed in Appeal Case No. 572 of 2018. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without considering the reply filed by the petitioner and the explanation subsequently tendered by the petitioner, the Panchayat Secretary-cumMember Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee, Gram Panchayat Raj, Isua, Block-Sarmera issued Letter No. 25 dated 17.06.2025 on the diktat of order of superior authority for dispensing with her services with immediate effect and it is this order which has been challenged in the present writ application on the ground that it has been issued on the instruction/diktat of superior authority without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-State defends the order of termination by submitting that the Panchayat Secretary-cum-Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee, Gram Panchayat Raj, Isua, Block-Sarmera has issued the termination order in compliance of the direction of the superior authority which is reflected from the termination order itself and since it is proper and justified, therefore, the same needs no interference.

¶38

Having heard the parties, it is appropriate to

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.726 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026 7/10

¶40

reproduce hereinbelow the termination order contained in Letter No. 25 dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure-P/8), which is as follows:-

¶41

vkns”k

¶42

fnukad 01-05-2025 dks iapk;r f”k{kd fu;kstu bdkbZ xzke iapk;r jkt blqvk ds lHkh lnL;ksa ds lkFk ekuuh; v/;{kk Jherh euh nsoh dh v/;{krk esa iapk;r fu;kstu bdkbZ dh cSBd vk;ksftr dh xbZA mDr cSBd esa ikfjr izLrko la[;k&03 esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj rFkk dk;kZy;&ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ukyank ds i=kad &1836 fnukad& 01-04-2025 }kjk izkIr funs”k ds vkyksd esa Jhefr lfjrk flUgk] iapk;r f”kf{kdk] u;k izkFkfed fo|ky; blqvk] ljesjk ds fu;kstu dh lEiw.kZ izfdz;k vfu;fer rjhds ls gksus ds vk/kkj ij rRdky izHkko ls fu;kstu jn~n djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA

¶43

vr% dk;kZy;&ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ukyank ds i=kad&1836 fnukad& 01-04-2025 rFkk iapk;r f”k{kd fu;kstu bdkbZ xzke iapk;r] blqvk dh cSBd fnukad& 01-05-2025 ds izLrko la[;k&03 esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa Jhefr lfjrk flUgk] iapk;r f”kf{kdk] u;k izkFkfed fo|ky; blqvk] ljesjk dks muds fu;kstu dh lEiw.kZ izfdz;k vfu;fer rjhds ls gksus ds vk/kkj ij Jhefr lfjrk flUgk] iapk;r f”kf{kdk] u;k izkFkfed fo|ky; blqvk] ljesjk dk fu;kstu rRdky izHkko ls jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA

¶44

vuqyXud%& ;FkksifjA

¶45

iapk;r lfpo&lg&lnL; lfpo iapk;r f”k{kd fu;kstu bZdkbZ xzke iapk;r jkt] blqvk iz[kaM&ljesjk] ukyank ia0 lfpo xzke iapk;r jkt blqvk ljesjk ¼ukyank½ ”

¶46

From a careful reading of the aforesaid termination

¶47

order itself, it is clear that this termination order has been issued on the basis of direction issued by the District Education

¶48

Patna High Court CWJC No.726 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026 8/10

¶49

Officer, Nalanda vide Letter No. 1836 dated 01.04.2025. The issue, therefore, which arises for consideration in this case is whether such an order could have been issued on the instruction/diktat of superior authority without independent application of mind?

¶50

The aforesaid issue was considered in another similar case of Kishore Kumar Giri Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. in CWJC No. 1368 of 2016 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court had the occasion to answer this issue vide judgment and order dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure-P/12). Paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the said order dated 05.07.2018 passed in CWJC No. 1368 of 2016 is quoted hereinbelow for the needful:-

¶51

“3. On behalf of the respondents stand was taken in the counter affidavit that the decision was taken by the Block Employment Unit. The meeting was convened in the light of the direction of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan and the Block Development Officer has simply issued the order of termination in compliance of the direction of the superior authority.

¶52

4. In view of the aforesaid, the

¶53

Patna High Court CWJC No.726 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026

¶54

9/10

¶55

Court has no option but to quash the order dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure-6), as order was at the dictate of the superior authority is nullity. Reference in this connection is made to the judgment in the case of Purtabpore Co. Ltd vs. Cane Commissioner Of Bihar & Ors, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1896. However, quashing of the order will not come in the way of the respondents to take decision independently in compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play. Consequential benefits of quashing of Annexure-6 would depend upon the fresh decision of the respondents in accordance with law.”

¶56

Since a Coordinate Bench of this Court has

¶57

already decided that an order issued at the diktat of superior authority is a nullity and reliance in this connection has been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Purtabpore Co. Ltd vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 1970 SC 1896 , therefore, I have no reason to take a different view in this matter.

¶58

Patna High Court CWJC No.726 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026 10/10

¶59

Considering the submissions made by the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order of termination contained in Letter No. 25 dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure-P/8) issued by the Panchayat Secretary-cum-Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee, Gram Panchayat Raj, Isua, Block-Sarmera, Nalanda is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated back in service with full back wages and consequential benefits.

¶60

The writ application is allowed in the aforesaid

¶61

terms.

¶62

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

¶63

Gaurav Sinha/-

¶64

U

Sarita Sinha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Sinha 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Rajiv Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Dhirendra Nath Mishra and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Lakhan Lal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ajit Chandra Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Jaikrishna Jha Vs Lalit Narayan Mithila University