Pratima Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, learned Advocate for the State.

The grievance of the petitioner lies within a limited bound to the extent, the petitioner seeking a direction upon the respondent to consider the past services of the petitioner in terms with the letter issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna vide Letter No. 4207 dated 22.11.2025. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondent authorities to grant time-bound promotion to her in light of the afore-noted letter; besides other service benefits for which the petitioner is found to be entitled.

The petitioner was duly appointed as Panchayat Teacher (Untrained) at Government Primary School, Harilochanpur on 28.11.2007 vide Letter No. 8 as per Teacher Rule 2006.

Completing the requisite two years training and DPE course on 06.08.2012, it is submitted that the petitioner also passed the competency test conducted by Bihar School Examination Board in 2024. Finally, the petitioner was duly appointed as Exclusive Teacher and accordingly, after issuance of the appointment letter on 23.12.2024, the petitioner joined on the post of Exclusive Teacher at Primary School, Harilochanpur, Purnea.

Despite the aforesaid facts, while extending the promotion, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been extended the benefit accorded by the Education Department under Memo No. 4207 dated 22.11.2025, whereby it is directed that past services of Exclusive Teachers shall be considered at the time of promotion.

Referring to a bench decision of this Court in Kailash Chandra Jha Vs. the State of Bihar (CWJC No. 5436 of 2026), the copy of which is marked as Annexure-P/7, it is submitted that in identical facts, the Court has directed the concerned authority to consider the claim of Kailash Chandra Jha and pass necessary consequential orders within the stipulated period, in case, his claim is found favoured.

On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State prays for a short adjournment to apprise this Court with regard to the present factual and legal position to come to a final adjudication.

Considering the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the nature of the grievance, this Court deems it fit and proper to extend liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Education Officer, Samastipur, District- Samastipur (Respondent No. 4), within a period of four weeks from today.

In case, such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed off by the concerned respondent(s) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Suffice it to observe that if the claim of the petitioner finds favour, necessary consequential orders shall be passed within the stipulated period.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.