Priyanka Rani @ Priyanka Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6722 of 2026 1.

Priyanka Rani @ Priyanka Devi W/o Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Resident of Village- Ranjendra Nagar, Ward No.- 22, P.S.-Gopalganj, DistrictGopalganj. 2.

Sandhya Kumari, W/o Raju Kumar, Resident of village- Nawada Parsauni, P.S.- Thawe, District- Gopalganj.

3.

Rajeev Ranjan, S/o Kanhaiya Singh, Resident of village- Sihorwa, Bishunpura, P.S.- Yadopur, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar .

2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5.

The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.

6.

The District Education Officer, District- Gopalganj 7.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), District- Gopalganj. 8.

The Prakhand Pramukh -cum- the Chairman of Block Teachers Selection Committee, Block Kuchaikot, District Gopalganj. 9.

The Block Development Officer-cum- Member Secretary, Block Teachers Employment Committee Kuchaikot, District Gopalganj. 10.

The Block Education Officer, Kuchaikot, Gopalganj. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dewanand Tiwari For the State :

Mr. Government Pleader (6) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

2. With the consent of the parties, this writ

2/4 application is being disposed of at this stage itself.

3. In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of the following relief:- "That, this writ petition is for direction to respondents for reinstatement and consequential benefits in view of the order passed by District Appellate Authority, Gopalganj vide order-dated 12.11.2025 in Appeal No. 13/2024 (Priyanka Rani and others Versus State of Bihar & Ors.), which attains its finality in absence of challenge of order of statutory Authority before appropriate forum or Court of Law within period prescribed and for other necessary relief/ reliefs:-

4. After advancing some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for seeking the aforesaid relief, the petitioner is prepared to file a representation before the District Education Officer, Gopalganj. He further submits that an appropriate direction be given to the District Education Officer, Gopalganj to dispose of his representation within a fixed time-frame, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5. To the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the

3/4 respondent-State does not have any objection.

6. Considering the limited nature of prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ application is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the District Education Officer, Gopalganj within one month from today. If such a representation is filed within the stipulated time, the District Education Officer, Gopalganj is directed to dispose of the same within a further period of three months from the date of filing of the representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7. Needless to emphasize that the final order, which shall be passed by District Education Officer, Gopalganj, should be a reasoned and speaking order. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief, which the petitioner would be claiming through the representation, then the same should be extended to the petitioner within a further period of three months from the date of passing of the final order by the District Education Officer, Gopalganj

8. With the aforesaid observation/direction and liberty granted, this writ application stands disposed of.

4/4

9. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also be deemed to have been disposed of. (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) HR/- U