Review Power Not Inherent; Authority Becomes Functus Officio Once Final Order Passed: Patna HC Reinstates Panchayat Teachers After 10 Years

The Patna High Court recently set aside the orders of the state-level tribunals and reinstated two women Panchayat teachers in Buxar after nearly a decade-long legal battle. In doing so, the Court reiterated that the power of review is not an inherent attribute of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority and must flow from a specific statutory conferment.

A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Alok Kumar Sinha was hearing a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the State Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Bihar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was rejected.

Background:

The petitioners were appointed as Panchayat Teachers pursuant to a selection process conducted under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. The appointments were made against sanctioned and vacant posts after due process of selection, counselling, and verification, as reflected in the appointment letters annexed to the writ petition. Subsequently, a dispute arose regarding the legality of the appointments. The matter was placed before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Buxar, which, by an order dated 9 October 2014, allowed the claims of the petitioners.

Thereafter, the same District Appellate Authority, by an order dated 25 January 2016, reviewed and recalled its earlier order dated 9 October 2014, holding that the earlier decision suffered from an error.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners challenged the order dated 25 January 2016 before the State Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Bihar. However, by an order dated 24 August 2017, the State Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the District Appellate Authority.

The petitioners argued that once the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority had passed its final order dated 9 October 2014, it became functus officio and stood divested of any authority to reopen, review, recall, or modify its own decision.

Agreeing with the petitioners, the Court held that the 2006 Rules do not contain any provision, either expressly or by necessary implication, conferring upon the Appellate Authority the power to review, recall, or reopen its own final order once it has been passed. The Court observed that the legal position on this issue is no longer res integra. It reiterated that the power of review is not an inherent attribute of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority and must flow from a specific statutory conferment. The Court noted:

“19. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court finds that in absence of any express provision under the Rules 2006 and Guidelines 2008, the Appellate Authority could not have assumed unto itself the power to review or revisit its own final decision. Once the final order was passed, the Authority became functus officio.”

The Court held that the power of review was introduced for the first time only under Rule 15 of the Rules of 2020. The express incorporation of such power in 2020 clearly indicates that no such power existed under the earlier statutory framework. The Court observed that the very fact that the legislature found it necessary to expressly confer the power of review in 2020 leaves no manner of doubt that such power did not exist under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 read with the Guidelines of 2008.

The Court further held that the power of review, being substantive in nature, cannot be applied retrospectively so as to validate actions taken at a time when no such power existed. The Court held:

“26. Applying the aforesaid statutory and legal principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the order dated 9.10.2014 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Buxar had attained finality. At that stage, the Authority stood divested of jurisdiction to reopen or reconsider the matter.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned orders whereby the petitioners' appointments had been effectively nullified and allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the respondents to accept the joining of the petitioners and to grant all consequential benefits to which they are legally entitled, with effect from the date of issuance of their appointment letters. The Court directed that the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of fifteen days.

Case Title: Kumari Bandana and Anr v. State of Bihar and Ors

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15887 of 2017

Appearance: Mr. Akash Chaturvedi appeared for the Petitioner. Smt. B. Singh appeared for the Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order