Shankar Prasad Sharma vs State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5241 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010329702026
======================================================
1. Shankar Prasad Sharma S/o Late Bhagwan Dayal Singh R/o Srikrishna Puri,
Kashipur, Samastipur
2. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Mahto, S/o Late Mahabir Mahto R/o Subhankerpur,
Darbhanga Bihar- 846006.
3. Dr. Arun Kumar Choudhary, S/o Late Rambujhaban Chaudhary R/o Mohala
Balbhadrapur Near Braham Sthan Dist.- Darbhanga Bihar- 800014.
4. Dr. Alok Kumar Singh, S/o Late Gaya Prasad Singh R/o Vill.- Baranda,
Post- Baluganj, P.S. Dhibra, Distt.- Aurangabad Bihar- 824218.
5. Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, S/o Late Tej Pratap Singh R/o Vill. Saidpur, P.O.
Dumari, P.S. Fatuha Distt. Patna Bihar- 803201.
6. Dr. Md. Aasaduzaman, S/o late Md. Masihuddin R/o Mumtaz Mohalla Ward
No.- 13, P.O.- Naugachia Distt.- Bhagalpur - 853204.
7. Dr. Meena Kumari, D/o Ram Khelawan Sahu R/o Akhil Prem Niwas
Goushala Road, Ward No.- 22, P.O.- Naughachia Bhagalpur Bihar- 853204.
8. Dr. Sashi Ranjan, S/o Nawal Kishore Singh R/o Vill. Babhanbigha Distt.
Sheikpura, Bihar- 811101.
9. Dr. Awadhesh Kr. Singh, S/o Managar Singh R/o K-202 Patligrem apartment
Patna Bihar- 800007.
10. Dr. Dinesh Prasad Sinha, S/o Late Manikamana Pd. Sinha R/o Mahadev
Road Mahajan Toli Bhojpur Ara Bihar- 802301.
11. Dr. Balbodh Yadav, S/o Late Prmeshwar Yadav R/o Muhalla Chunabhathi,
P.O.- Laxmisagar, Distt.- Darbhanga Bihar- 846009.
12. Dr. Prahlad Kumar, S/o Late Shiva Ishwar Dayal R/o Mokhtar Toli Kadam
Kuan, Nala Road Patna Bihar- 800003.
13. Dr. Naresh Chandra Vidyarthi, S/o Sukhdeo Prasad Singh Yadav R/o
Yaduvanshi Nagar Malgodam Nawada Bihar- 805110.
14. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Bariar, S/o Late J.P. Bariar R/o Near Devi Sthan,
Chittranagar, New Area Aurangabad Bihar- 824101.
15. Dr. Nand Kishore Singh, S/o Suresh Singh R/o Post Graduate Deptt. of
Zoology M.U. Bodh Gaya.
16. Surendra Kumar, S/o Ram Prit Singh R/o Nagla Main Road, Malsalrni Patna
City 800008 Bihar.
17. Banke Bihari Singh, S/o Late Bajrangi Singh R/o T.S. College Hisua Vill.-
Urash, P.O. and P.S.- Hisua, Dist.- Nawada (Bihar) 805103.
18. Ashok Kumar Jha, S/o Late Bideswar Jha R/o Vill. and P.O.- Meghaul, Via
Sakri Dist.- Madhubani (Bihar) 847239 Madhubani.
19. Kishori Sah, S/o Late Ganga Sah R/o Vill.- Brahim Pur, Sakri Station Road,
P.O.- Sakri, Dist.- Darbhanga.
20. Arun Kumar Ghosh, S/o Panchu Gopal Ghosh R/o D28/1, 2nd Floor,
Rabindra Pally Near Jubak Sangaa club, P.O.- Bagharatin Patui Kolkata.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
2/58
21. Prabhuranjan Prasad Singh, S/o Late Haribansh Narayan Singh R/o New
Professors Colony, Dinkar Nagar, P.O. Refinary Township, P.O. Nagar, Dist.
Bagusarai, Bihar.
22. Krishna Sevak Pd. Singh, S/o Late Kapil Deo Singh R/o Srikrishnapuri
West, Munishpal Tanching Ground, Dharampur, Samastipur, Bihar- 848101.
23. S.M. Imran Ahmad, S/o A.R.M. Ghazi R/o Ward No.- 44 Khatopur, P.O.
Mirzapur Bandbar Dist. Begusarai.
24. Manoj Kumar Singh, S/o Late Devendra Prasad Singh R/o Lohiya Nagar,
Ward No.- 28, P.O.- Suhird Nagar Begusarai.
25. Ratish Kumar, S/o Late Raghu Nandan Singh R/o Vill. and Post- Badalpura,
Thana Motihari, Dist. Bagusarai.
26. Ratnanshu Thakur, S/o Late Upendra Thakur R/o Bagha Ward No.- 24,
Suhird Nagar, Begusarai.
27. Awadh Kishor Saha, S/o Late Doman Saha R/o At Rajia Bhawan, Naya
Chawk Kurdela, P.O.- A.G. Bazar, Dist.- Katihar, Pin- 854101.
28. Arun Kumar, S/o Narottam Kumar R/o Vill. and P.O.- Teri, Naugacha,
Bhagalpur 853204.
29. Pratima Kumari, D/o Late Jageshwar Singh R/o M.A.M. College
Naughachia.
30. Himanshu Shekhar Mishra, S/o Jyotindra Mishra R/o Rajendra Colony
Naugachia, P.O. Mania Mor, P.S. Naugachia, Dist. Bhagalpur- 853204.
31. Kaushal Kishore Singh, S/o Late Rangnath Singh R/o Vill.- Naurah, P.O.
Nagrah, P.S. Naugachia Distt. Bhagalpur (Bihar).
32. Devendra Prasad Sharma, S/o Rajendra Prasad Sharma R/o Professor
Colony Naugachia, P.O. Naugachia Dist. Bhagalpur.
33. I R A Singh, D/o Kanta Prasad Ram R/o Village- Dimaha Diyara, P.O. and
P.S.- Ismailpur, Dist.- Bhagalpur.
34. Sunil Kumar Mandal, S/o Mahabir Mandal R/o Nayatola, Nangachia.
35. Poonam Kumari, D/o Late Ramnandan Prasad Singh R/o Vill.- Pakra, Via-
Naugachia, Dist. Bhagalpur.
36. Subodh Kumar Singh, S/o Shiv Narayan Singh R/o Dharm Shala Road,
Naugachia, Bhagalpur.
37. Devashish Laheri, S/o Late Dr. D.D. Laheri R/o Naugachia W.No.- 26 South
Point School.
38. Poonam Kumari Gupta, W/o Ajay Kumar Gupta R/o Musahari Patti, Ward-
26, Naugachia (Bhagalpur) 853204.
39. Minakshi Kumari, D/o Shashidhar Jha R/o Gaushala road Naugachia, Near
South P.O in School, Ward No.- 20, Bhagalpur, Pin 853204.
40. Seema Gupta, D/o Prof. Harinandan Prasad R/o Professor Colony,
Naugachia M.A.M. College Naugachia - 853204.
41. Balram Prasad Singh, S/o Late Ram Prasad Singh R/o Vill.- Phalhanwan,
P.O.- Lohra, P.S.- Harnavi Distt.- Nalanda (Bihar) 803110.
42. Sunil Kumar Bhakta, S/o Late Lakshmi Prasad Bhakta Vill. and P.O.- Salha,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
3/58
Dist.- Vaishali (Bihar) - 844505.
43. Kanta Devi, W/o Late Ashok Kumar Bhakta R/o, P.O.- Salha, Dist.- Vaishali
(Bihar).
44. Dr. Ravindra Kumar, S/o Sri. Tapeshwar Thakur R/o Brahmpura, Sanjay
Cinema Road, Gali No.- 07, House No. A3/32, Post M.I.T. Pin 842003
Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
45. Parvin Kumar, S/o Late Awadhesh Kumar Verma R/o Ramrati Kunj Moh.
Sahay Campus, P.S.- Kazimohammedpur, Chhaitach Chok, District-
Muzaffarpur, Pin code 842001.
46. Satyendra Rai, S/o Ramji Rai R/o P.O.- Arsia, P.S.- Jandaha, District-
Vaishali Bihar- 844505.
47. Sunil Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Jagannath Pd. Sharma R/o Deptt. of Botany,
B.M.D. College Dayalpur P.O. Bidupur (R.S.), Distt.- Vaishali.
48. Ram Kumar Singh, S/o- Nawal Kishore Singh R/o Vill.- Kardi and P.O.-
Takiya Karvi, Dist.- Gaya.
49. Satendra Kumar, S/o- Naresh Prasad Singh R/o- At -P.O.- Rampur Sindai,
P.S.- Barbigha Dist.- Shekhpura 811101.
50. Arbind Prasad Sinha, S/o- Late Jagdish Prasad R/o- Vill.- Nepura P.S. and
P.O.- Asthawan, Dist.- Nalanda (Bihar).
51. Subodh Kumar Mondal, S/o- Late Raghu Mandal R/o- Vill. and P.O.-
Dwashay, P.S.- Dadkhora, Distt.- Katihar 855105 Bihar.
52. Umesh Chandra Tiwari, S/o- Late Dwarika Prasad Tiwari R/o- Qr. No.- 133,
A.P. Colony, Gaya (Bihar).
53. Satyasheel Kumar Mishra, S/o- Janardah Prasad Mishra R/o- ACE aspire,
Flat No. G203, Tech Zoneu, Greater Noida Sector 1, District Gautam Budha
Nagar 201306 U.P.
54. Tarapati Singh, S/o- Late Vidyapati Singh R/o- Junior Bramch Branch,
Madhubani Ward No.- 03.
55. Mohsin Ahmad, S/o- Late Syed Fazlur Rahman R/o- At Shahpur Undi, P.O.-
Shahpur Undi Via, Dist. Samastipur, Bihar.
56. Shyamal Biswas, S/o- Late Sachindra Nath Biswas R/o- Kathal Bari
Bhandar Chowk Near P.O.- LalBagh Dist.- Darbhanga Bihar.
57. Birendra Thakur, S/o- Late Indra Kant Thakur R/o- Vill. Chataria, P.O.-
Subhankarpur, Distt. Darbhanga.
58. Mohammad Altaful Haque, S/o- Quazi Ansarul Haque R/o- At- Po.
Kumtaul, Via Kumrauli Dist.- Darbhanga.
59. Krishna Murari Acharya, S/o- Late Tej Narayan Acharya R/o- Vill. and P.O.-
Akberpur Bank, P.S. Biraul, Dist.- Darbhanga.
60. Madan Kumar Jha, S/o- Late Krishnadev Jha R/o- Vill and P.O.- Raghapur
Thana Manigachi Darbhanga.
61. Dheera Choudhary, W/o Amar Nath Choudhary R/o- Vill. and P.O.- Nehra,
Darbhanga.
62. Syed Mohammad Sayeed Akhter, S/o- Syed Mohammad Shamsul Haque
R/o- Chak Rahmat, infront of Girls Hostel Darbhanga Chak Rahmat, infront
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
4/58
of Girls Hostel Darbhanga.
63. Shankar Prasad, S/o- Late Lakhan Prasad R/o- West Mohan Bigha Newarea
Patel Gali Dehri on Sone, Rohtas- 821305.
64. Ashok Kumar, S/o- Late Prayag Pal Panday R/o- Moh.- Koirpurwa Near
Paliwa, Buxur.
65. Siya Ram Singh, S/o- Late Kapoor Singh R/o- Professor Colony Syndicate
Buxar Bihar.
66. Chandeswar Pd. Singh, S/o- Late Shiv Dayal Singh R/o- At Nawada, P.O.
and P.S.- Nawada (Ara) Dist. Bhojpur 802301.
67. Ramasharya Prasad, S/o- Sh. Siya Sharan Prasad Singh R/o- Ramasharya
Prasad Ward No.- 3, Raipur.
68. Dr. Narendra Tiwari, S/o- Lt. Ram Bachan Tiwari R/o East Patil Nagar,
Road No.- 06, House No.- 55, Patna 23.
69. Surendra Kumar Singh, S/o- Late Jagdish Singh R/o- Surendra Kumar Singh
S/o Late Jagdish Singh, Vill.- Gunjadihari, P.O.- Rupsagar, P.S. Nawanagar,
Distt. Buxar, State- Bihar.
70. Dr. Raish Singh S/o- Late Mangeshwar Singh R/o- College of commerce
Arts and Science Patna.
71. Mahesh Prasad, S/o- Late Ram Deo Prasad R/o- 405, Bhagwat Kunj, Sardar
patel marg, N Sri Krishnapuri, Boring Road, Patna-13.
72. Ashok Kumar, S/o- Late Ram Bachan Prasad Singh R/o- Village Samtam
Bigha, P.O.- Bansdih, Dist. Nalanda, 801307.
73. Kundan Kumar Singh, S/o- Late Lal Bahadur Singh R/o- Vill. Koilwar,
Misra Tola, Ward NV- 03, P.O.- Koilwar P.S. Koilwar Dist. Bhojpur, Bihar
802160.
74. Dr. Sharad Kumar, S/o- Late Brajnandan Pd. Yadav R/o- College of
Commerce, Arts and Sci. Patna.
75. Vipendra Kumar Sinha, S/o- Late Surendra Kumar Sinha R/o- Mohalla
Sohdih, P.O.- Sohsona, Bihar Distt. Nalanda.
76. Dr. Sheo Kumar Yadav, S/o- Late Jitan Yadav R/o- P.G. Deptt. of Physics,
Magadh University, Body Gaya.
77. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, S/o- Late Brajnandan Pd. Yadav R/o- P.G. Deptt. of
Chemistry, M.U. Body Gaya.
78. Dr. Ram Sewak Singh, S/o- Late kailash Singh R/o- Deptt. Physics, M.U.
Bodh Gaya.
79. Anil Kumar, S/o- Late Dipan Prasad R/o- P.G. Deptt. of Chemistry M.U.
Bodh Gaya.
80.
1.
Shanaz Shabbir, wife of Md. Shabbir, Resident of near Masjid white house
compound, PS-Gaya, District-Gaya.
81. Baban Singh, S/o- Gurucharan Singh R/o- Vill. Shahpur, P.S.- Aurangabad
Dist.- Aurangabad (Bihar).
82. Paras Nath Kumar, S/o- Late Hari Narayan Singh R/o- T.S. College, Hisua
(Nawada) Deptt. of Physics.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
5/58
83. Haridwar Singh, S/o- Late Rameshwar Singh R/o- T.S. College, Hisua
(Nawada) Deptt. of Botany.
84. Arun Kumar Singh, S/o- Late- Ram Nandan Singh R/o- Purwari Tola Near
Post Office Ward No.-11 Sakh Mohan Samastipur.
85. Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o- Late Shree Sidheswari Singh R/o- Deptt. of
Physics, S. Sinha College Aurangabad 824102.
86. Dr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, S/o- late Siva Nandan Prasad R/o- Dept. of botany
Patna Science College Patna Bihar Patna University.
87. Dr. Binay Kumar Singh, S/o- Late Bhunywar Pd. Singh R/o- P.G. Dept. of
Patna University Bihar.
88. Dr. Raadhe Shayam Pd. Sinha, S/o- Late Rajendra Pd. Sinha R/o- Dept. of
Botany Patna University, Bihar.
89. Dr. Arun kumar Singh, S/o- Late Prof. Satyadeo Singh R/o- Vill. and Post-
Naini, P.S.- Chhapra Muffasil Dist.- Chhapra, Saran 841301.
90. Abdus Salam, S/o- Late Md. Yasin Khan R/o- Greenland School, W. No.-
27, Dharampur Samastipur Bihar.
91. Ashok Kumar Mahto, S/o- Late Saryu Mahto R/o- Ray Hassanpur Chain
tola Bhikhna Pahari P.O.- Bankipur P.S.- Kadamkaun, Patna 800004.
92. Abhay Kumar Chowdhari, S/o- Sri Shiv Person Chowdhary R/o- vill-
Sahuari P.O.- Karagahar P.S.- Karagahar Distt.- Rohtas.
93. Prafulla Kumar, S/o- Bhola Singh R/o- Vill.- Dharseni P.O.- Kuttaut P.S.-
Barbigha Distt.- Sheikhpura 811101.
94. Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o- Harinandan Prasad Singh R/o- At Post- Sari Area
Warishnagar Distt.-Samastipur.
95. Dharmshila Kumari, H/o- Late Nand Kishor Prasad Bhakta Vill. and P.O.-
Salha Dist.- Vaishali Bihar.
96.
1.
Manorama Singh, wife of Late Bishwendra Pratap Singh, resident Bara Bag
Road, Textile Colony, PS- Dumraon, District - Buxar.
96.
2.
Aparajita Singh, dauther of Late Bishwendra Pratap Singh, resident Bara
Bag Road, Textile Colony, PS- Dumraon, District - Buxar.
96.
3.
Ratnesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Bishwendra Pratap Singh, resident Bara
Bag Road, Textile Colony, PS- Dumraon, District - Buxar.
96.
4.
Ritesh Kumar, son of Late Bishwendra Pratap Singh, resident Bara Bag
Road, Textile Colony, PS- Dumraon, District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Main
Secretariat, Patna- 800015 (Bihar).
2. Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Vikash
Bhavan, Ground Floor, New Secretariat, Patna- 800015 (Bihar).
3. Special Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhavan,
New Secretariat, Patna- 800015 (Bihar).
4. Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhavan, New
Secretariat, Patna- 800015 (Bihar).
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
6/58
5. Dr Amrendra Kumar Jha, S/o Mr Indra Nand Jha, R/o Mohalla Gangasagar
Ward No. 28 South of Marwari College, District-Darbhanga, Pin Code-
846004, presently working Re-designated Demonstrator, Department of
Botany, Marwari College, Darbhanga, Lalit Narayan Mithila University,
Darbhanga, Bihar.
6. Dr Awadhesh Prasad Yadav, S/o Mr Ramkrit Ray, R/o Village Dharipur, PO
Harajee, PS Awatar Nagar District-Saran (Chapra), Bihar, Pin Code- 84120,
presently working as Re-designated Demonstrator, Department of Physics,
Marwari College, Darbhanga, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, Bihar.
7. Dr Anil Bihari Verma, S/o Mr Bipin Bihari Verma, R/o Botanical Place, near
Kalyan Hostal, Gangasagar PO, Lalbag, District-Darbhanga, Pin Code-
846004 (Bihar), presently working as Re-designated Demonstrator,
Department of Botany, Marwari College, Darbhanga, Lalit Narayan Mithila
University, Darbhanga, Bihar.
8. Laliteshwar Mishra Lalitesh @ Laliteshwar Mishra, Son of Aniruddha
Mishra, Resident of Garhia, PS-Bangaon, District-Saharsa at present
Residing at ward no. 7, Kali Bari Om sai Colony, PO-Deoghar, District-
Deoghar, Jarkhand.
9. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh, Son of Dharam Raj Singh, Resident of ward
no. 17 Barhi Tola, PO and PS- Mokama, District-Patna.
10. Manoj Kumar Singh, Son of Bhagwat Prasad Singh, Resident of Aadarsh
Niwash, Kamal Nagar Colony, Ambai, PS-Bhagalpur, District-Bhagalpur.
11. Kaushal Kishore Prasad, Son of Dhrub Narayan Thakur, Resident of Near
Bus Stand, Kadirabad, PS-Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga.
12. Uma Shankar Mishra, Son of Kamleshwari Mishra, Resident of Mishrapur,
Post-Kumaitha, District-Bhagalpur.
13. Prabhat Kumar, son of Murli Dhar Mallik, Resident of south Dighi, Lalbagh,
PS-Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga.
14. Nageshwar Prasad Yadav, Son of Ramsudhari Yadav, Resident of
Gandhinagar Katrahiya, PS-Darbhanga Sadar, District-Darbhanga.
15. Hamendra Narayan Yadav, Son of Asharfi Singh, ward no. 7, Khaira Kunji,
PS- Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga.
16. Subodh Chandra Yadav, son of Suresh Chandra Yadav, ward no. 13,
Katahalbari Chowk, PS-LNMU, District-Darbhanga.
17. Madan Mohan Choudhary, Son of Suryakant Chourdhary, Resident of ward
no. 47, K M Tank Lehariyasarai, PS- Lehariyasarai, District-Darbhanga.
18. Gauri Shankar Jha, son of Late Chandra Shekhar Jha, Resident of Mohalla-
Vidyapati Chowk, Mohala Kathalwari, P.O. Lalbag, P.S. L.N. Mithila
University, District- Darbhanga.
19. Ramakant Lal Karn, Son of Late Brahamdev Lal Das, Resident of Village-
Chhapki Parri, Shanti Vihar Colony, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O.
Laxmisagar, P.S. Sadar, District- Darbhanga.
20. Bhogendar Kumar Jha, Son of Late Chandra Kant Jha, Resident of Village-
Chataria, P.O. Subhankarpur, P.S. Mabbi, District- Darbhanga.
21. Madhav Choudhary, Son of Late Deo Kant Choudhary, Resident of Mohalla-
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
7/58
Subhankarpur, New Colony, P.O. Subhankarpur, P.S. Darbhanga Town,
District- Darbhanga.
22. Radha Shyam Mandal, Son of Late Darpi Mandal, Resident of Village-
Chanduna, P.O. Chanduna, P.S. Jale, District- Darbhanga.
23. Radha Kant Roy, Son of Late Kedar Roy, Resident of Mohalla- Raj Motor
Gairage, P.O. K.S.D.S. Sanskrit Univertiy, P.S. L.N. Mithila University,
District- Darbhanga.
24. Amod Narayan Singh, Son of Sital Prasad Singh, Resident of Madhura
north, PS-Narpatganj, District-Araria-854335.
25. Yashwir Prasad, Son of Niras Prasad, Resident of Hayaghat, PS-Hayaghat,
District-Darbhanga.
26. Bishwambhar Choudhar, Son of Yogendra Choudhary, Resident of
Bashaitha, PS-Benipatti, District-Madhubani-847102.
27. Shivendra Prasad, Son of Dr. Radhe Shyam Prasad, Resident of New
Brahampur Road no. 1, Khemnichak, PS-Ramkrishna Nagar, Patna-800027.
28. Nazmul Hakim Nayeem, S/o M.A.Nayeem, R/o Ali Nam, Barahpura Road,
Islamnagar, Bhikhanpur Gumti No. 3, P.S. Ishakchak, Dist - Bhagalpur.
29. Dr. Mohammad Sahab Ahmad, S/o Late Haji Khalil Ahmad, R/o Hakin Amir
Hasan Lane, Tatarpur, P.S. - Tatarpur, Town and Dist - Bhagalpur.
30. Md. Ehtesham Ahmed, S/o Late Md. Gafoor, R/o Karamat Ali Lane,
Tatarpur, P.S.-Tatarpur, Town and Dist - Bhagalpur.
31. Dileep Kumar Thakur, S/o Maheshwar Thakur, R/o Lal Kothi, Tatarpur, P.S.-
Tatarpur, Town and Dist - Bhagalpur.
32. Fatma Benazir, W/o Md. Iftekhar Ansari, R/o Bhairo Lal Lane, Mohanpur,
Champanagar, P.S. Nathnagar, Town and Dist - Bhagalpur.
33. Dr. Shubha Pathak, Daughter of Late Dr. Murari Pathak, Resident of Flat
No. 162/C, Saket Vihar Apartment, Khajpura, Patna-800014.
34. Dr. Ashok Kumar, Son of Late Ambika Pd. Seth, Resident of Police Line,
near PHED Office, Behind Shivam Nursing Home, Rampur, Gaya-823001.
35. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Raj Kumar Lal, Resident of Raj Sadan, Ward
No. 13, Near Nagar Parishad Gate, P.O., P.S. and District Kaimur (Bhabhua).
36. Arun Kumar, Son of Late Maheshwar Prasad, Resident of Ward No.7,
Lodipur House Kachhari Road, Beside Police Station, P.O., P.S.and District
Kaimur (Bhabhua).
37. Dr. Vijay Kumar Sinha Son of Late Bhola Nath Sinha, Resident of Chand
Chaura (Gabra par) P.O., P.S. and District Gayaji -823001.
38. Dr. Bimla Pathak, D/o Dr. Murari Pathak, Resident of Village Bank
P.O.Bank P.S.-Akhori Gola, Dehari on sone, District Rohtas-821001.
39. Dr. Quisar Ahmad, Son of Late Habib Ahmad Resident of Rahat Manjil
Road, No.1/A white house Compound, Gaya-823001.
40. Shashi Kant Jha Son of Late Ramchandra Jha, Resident of Mohalla-
Jethiyahi Pokhar, Mirzapur, P.O- Lalbagh, P.S. Sadar, Darbhanga, District-
Darbhanga.
41. Gangadhar Jha Son of Late Harivallabh Jha, Resident of Village- Ward
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
8/58
no.01, Satghara, P.O. Satghara, P.S. Babubarhi, District- Madhubani.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Dr. Raushan, Advocate
: Ms. Shreyashi Raj, Advocate
: Mr. Tauseef Waquar, Advocate
: Mr. Akshat Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Chinmay Harsh Karn, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, AG
: Mr. Rahul Kumar, AC to AG
For the Respondents : Mr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, Advocate
: Ms. Preety Ranjan, Advocate
For the Intervenor : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Bishwash Vijeta, Advocate
: Mr. Ram Naresh Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Keshav Kumar Jha, Adocate
: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 30-10-2026
Heard learned Senior Advocate/Advocates appearing
for the respective parties.
2. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the instant
writ petition was originally instituted before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,
seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,
particularly a writ of mandamus, for protection of the status,
rank and pay of the petitioners, who claim to have been
designated as “Demonstrators” against substantive sanctioned
posts prior to 05.10.1991 in various constituent and affiliated
colleges under different universities in the State of Bihar. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
9/58
petitioners seek protection of their status, rank and pay,
including the corresponding replacement and revised pay scales,
in terms of the judgment and final order dated 27.02.2017
passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 6178–6188 of 2015, titled “ Durga
Prasad Singh and Others v. State of Bihar and Others” , and
the judgment and order dated 22.07.2002 passed in Civil Appeal
No. 4215–4216 of 2002, titled “ State of Bihar and Another v.
Radha Krishna Jha and Others”; as also in the light of the
prescription as provided under Section 2(v) of the Bihar State
Universities Act, 1976, read with Section 2(p) of the Bihar
Universities Act, 1960, as well as the University Grants
Commission (UGC) Circular dated 06.01.1973.
3. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing of
the impugned orders bearing Nos. 1301 dated 06.07.2017, 1616
dated 01.09.2017 and 141 dated 01.02.2018, issued by the State
Government, whereby, according to the petitioners, their status,
rank and pay were adversely altered in an arbitrary and
unreasonable manner, in violation of the principles of natural
justice and contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the High Court, as well as the applicable statutory
provisions.
4. The aforesaid writ petition was registered as Writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
10/58
Petition (Civil) No. 619 of 2024, titled “Shankar Prasad
Sharma and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others” .
However, vide order dated 03.02.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court expressed its disinclination to entertain the writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and disposed of the
same by transferring it to this Court for consideration under
Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant directions
contained in the said order read as follows:
“2. We are not inclined to entertain
this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. However, as the Writ
Petition was pending before this Court for
sometime, we deem it appropriate to transfer
the Writ Petition to the High Court of as a Writ
Judicature at Patna for registering it Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. The Registry is directed to transmit
the entire records of the writ petition to the
High Court expeditiously.
4. It is made clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the
matter. The parties will be entitled to raise all
contentions and objections before the High
Court and it is for the High Court to consider
the case on its own merits and dispose it of.
5. In view of the fact that the petition
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
11/58
has been pending for sometime, we request the
High Court to take and dispose of the Writ the
Petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of five months from today.
6. In view of above, the Writ Petition
is disposed of.”
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the entire record of the writ petition was
transmitted to this Court. Accordingly, the Registry of this Court
registered the matter as Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5241 of
2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the
same was placed before the learned Single Judge on 23.04.2026.
6. After the matter was heard for some time, it was
taken up for consideration on 21.07.2026. The hearing
ultimately concluded on 03.09.2026, whereupon the judgment
was reserved.
7. This Court is conscious of the time frame indicated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for expeditious disposal of the
matter. However, owing to a change in the roster and the panel
of Government Advocates, some unavoidable delay has
occurred.
8. The controversy in the present case has its genesis
in the year 1969, when the Government of Bihar created the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
12/58
posts of Demonstrators in colleges, carrying the pay scale of Rs.
250–400. The posts were intended, inter alia , to provide for the
placement of persons working as Laboratory Assistants,
Laboratory In-charges and Lab Technicians in various colleges.
9. Subsequently, by Circular dated 06.01.1973, the
University Grants Commission sanctioned the posts of
Demonstrators and clarified that Demonstrators fell within the
ambit of the expression “teacher” under Section 2(p) of the
Bihar Universities Act, 1960.
10. Thereafter, the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976
came into force, repealing the 1960 Act. Under Section 2(v) of
the 1976 Act, Demonstrators were included within the statutory
definition of ‘Teacher’.
11. The petitioners, as also the intervenor-applicants
impleaded in the present proceedings, claim to have been
working as Laboratory Technicians, Laboratory In-charges and
persons holding similar positions in various colleges, and to
have been appointed on different dates from the year 1976
onwards.
12. In the absence of promotional avenues for persons
occupying such posts, writ petitions, being CWJC No. 387 of
1995 (R) and CWJC No. 2176 of 1996 (R), were instituted
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
13/58
before the Ranchi Bench of the erstwhile Patna High Court,
seeking appointment or redesignation of eligible persons as
Demonstrators. Vide orders dated 07.09.1995 and 03.04.1997,
respectively, the learned Single Judges allowed the said writ
petitions and directed that eligible Laboratory Assistants,
Laboratory In-charges and Technical Assistants be redesignated
as Demonstrators.
13. The aforesaid orders were challenged before the
learned Division Bench. However, the challenge was rejected
vide order dated 09.12.1998 passed in LPA No. 274 of 1997 (R).
The respondents were, inter alia , directed to constitute a
committee to scrutinise the eligibility of Laboratory Assistants,
Laboratory In-charges, Lab Technicians and Technical
Assistants for appointment to the posts of Demonstrators.
14. The matter thereafter reached the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4215–4216 of 2002, arising
out of SLP (C) Nos. 7021 and 7022 of 1999, titled “ State of
Bihar and Another v. Radha Krishna Jha and Others” . The
Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment and order of the
Division Bench dated 09.12.1998, observing, inter alia , that
Laboratory Assistants working in technical institutions were
equivalent to Laboratory Assistants working in colleges and that
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
14/58
both categories were governed by the norms of the UGC.
15. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the State of
Jharkhand, vide letter No. 5/MI-33/200/M-243 dated
07.04.2003, redesignated 42 Laboratory Assistants as
Demonstrators, with the promotional avenues admissible to
Demonstrators. In the meantime, the Department of Human
Resources Development, Government of Bihar, prepared a
memorandum for taking steps to designate eligible Laboratory
Assistants, Laboratory In-charges and Technicians as
Demonstrators. The proposal was approved by the Finance
Department and subsequently by the State Cabinet on
06.06.2006.
16. Consequently, the Government of Bihar, vide
letters bearing Nos. 1115 dated 14.06.2006 and 1456 dated
01.08.2006, directed the Vice-Chancellors of the universities
concerned to redesignate Graduate Laboratory Assistants, Junior
Laboratory Assistants, Laboratory In-charges, Lab Technicians
and Technical Assistants as Demonstrators against sanctioned
posts on a permanent and regular basis, with consequential
fixation of pay in the applicable scale.
17. Thereafter, vide letter No. 1261 dated 09.06.2008,
the State Government revised the pay scales of teachers,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
15/58
Principals and Vice-Principals in accordance with the
recommendations concerning UGC pay scales. Under the said
arrangement, Laboratory Assistants drawing the pay scale of Rs.
5,500–9,000 and having reached the pay of Rs. 8,300, or those
who had completed 16 years of continuous service, were made
eligible for the pay scale of Demonstrators, namely Rs. 8,000–
13,500, with effect from 01.01.1996.
18. Upon approval of the relevant proposals, the
petitioners, having been redesignated as Demonstrators, were
granted the pay scale of Rs. 5,500–9,000 for the period
commencing from 01.01.1996 up to 2006. Subsequently,
pursuant to the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission,
the corresponding replacement pay scale for Demonstrators,
namely Rs. 15,600–39,100, was made applicable with effect
from 01.01.2006. The petitioners accordingly claim entitlement
to the corresponding revised pay scale admissible to
Demonstrators.
19. In the meanwhile, with a view to removing certain
anomalies in the provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act,
1976, the State Legislature enacted the Bihar State Universities
(Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012.
20. By virtue of the said amendment, the definition of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
16/58
“teacher” was restricted to University Professors, Professors,
Readers and Lecturers, and to sanctioned posts in the prescribed
teachers’ grade. The amendment was given retrospective effect
from 05.10.1991, being the date associated with the issuance of
the UGC Regulations, 1991.
21. As a consequence of the amendment,
Demonstrators, including persons formerly employed as
Laboratory Assistants, Laboratory In-charges, Lab Technicians
and Technical Assistants who had been redesignated as
Demonstrators prior to 05.10.1991, were excluded from the
statutory definition of “teacher”. The petitioners contend that,
notwithstanding the said amendment, they had been appointed
against sanctioned posts, redesignated as Demonstrators and
continued to be treated as members of the teaching staff.
22. Pursuant to the 2012 Amendment Act, the State
Government issued letter No. 1893 dated 22.10.2013 and letter
No. 1964 dated 31.10.2013, whereby the status, rank and pay of
persons formerly employed as Laboratory Assistants,
Laboratory In-charges, Lab Technicians and Technical
Assistants, who had been redesignated as Demonstrators prior to
05.10.1991, were altered. They were treated as non-teaching
staff, and their pay was fixed in the scale of Rs. 5,500–9,000
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
17/58
with effect from 01.01.1996 and the corresponding replacement
scale of Rs. 9,300–34,800 with effect from 01.01.2006.
23. The constitutional validity of the 2012
Amendment Act was challenged before this Court in a batch of
writ petitions, being the lead case, CWJC No. 7644 of 2013 and
analogous cases. The challenge was rejected by judgment and
order dated 06.01.2014, whereby the amendment was upheld as
constitutionally valid.
24. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the
petitioners and similarly situated persons approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) Nos. 9234–9237 of
2014, titled Durga Prasad Singh and Others v. State of Bihar and
Others. The said special leave petitions were converted into
Civil Appeal Nos. 6178–6181 of 2015 and were disposed of by
judgment dated 27.02.2017.
25. While declining to grant benefits inconsistent with
the impugned amendment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued a
specific protective direction concerning the existing status, rank
and pay of the appellants. The relevant portion of the judgment
reads as follows:
“We, however, make it clear that the
present status, rank and pay of the appellants
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
18/58
will not be disturbed. If any Lab Assistant has
been given designation of demonstrator, which
he continues to hold till date, it will not be
withdrawn. They will not be entitled to any
further benefits in conflict with the impugned
Act.”
26. In the wake of the aforesaid judgment, the
Government of Bihar issued letters bearing Nos. 1301 dated
06.07.2017 and 1616 dated 01.09.2017. Although the State
Government acknowledged that the existing status, rank and pay
of designated Demonstrators were not to be disturbed to their
detriment and that the designation of Demonstrator conferred
upon a Laboratory Assistant was not to be withdrawn, the
consequential treatment accorded to the petitioners had the
effect, according to them, of reducing their status and pay.
27. In particular, the petitioners contend that they
were treated as members of the non-teaching staff and that their
pay was reduced from the Demonstrator’s scale of Rs. 8,000–
13,500, applicable with effect from 01.01.1996, to the
Laboratory Assistant’s scale of Rs. 5,500–9,000.
Consequentially, the replacement pay scale applicable to
Demonstrators, namely Rs. 15,600–39,100 with effect from
01.01.2006, was also reduced to the corresponding scale of Rs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
19/58
9,300–34,800 applicable to Laboratory Assistants.
28. Subsequently, vide letter No. 141 dated
01.02.2018, the State Government, with reference to its earlier
letter No. 1616 dated 01.09.2017, directed the Vice-Chancellors
of the universities in Bihar to furnish a list confined to those
persons who had been appointed as Demonstrators against
substantive sanctioned posts on a regular basis on or before
18.09.1975, against posts sanctioned prior to 01.01.1973.
29. The petitioners assailed the aforesaid
communications on the ground that the criteria prescribed
therein effectively exclude them, as well as other similarly
situated persons, from consideration for determination and
protection of their status, rank and pay as Demonstrators. Thus,
the principal grievance of the petitioners is directed against the
aforesaid communications dated 06.07.2017, 01.09.2017 and
01.02.2018, which, according to them, have resulted in the
withdrawal of the financial benefits attached to their existing
designation, notwithstanding the protective directions issued by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad Singh (supra) .
The petitioners maintain that, while the 2012 Amendment Act
may restrict the grant of further benefits inconsistent with its
provisions, it does not authorise the State Government to disturb
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
20/58
the status, rank and pay expressly protected by the judgment
dated 27.02.2017.
30. Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the
petitioners had been duly appointed as Laboratory Assistants,
Laboratory In-charges or Technicians in various colleges across
the State of Bihar during the period between 1976 and 1991.
Upon their subsequent redesignation as Demonstrators, they
acquired a corresponding status, rank and entitlement to pay,
which, according to learned Senior Counsel, stood recognised
and protected by the judgment dated 27.02.2017 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad Singh ( supra ). It is
contended that the protection expressly extended by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court to the existing status, rank and pay of the
appellants could not be rendered nugatory by the impugned
governmental communications.
31. Learned Senior Advocate emphasised that the
petitioners’ status, rank and pay, as obtaining on the date of the
aforesaid judgment, were not liable to be disturbed to their
detriment. He further submitted that the petitioners had been
granted the corresponding benefits pursuant to the earlier
judgment and order dated 22.07.2002 passed in Civil Appeal
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
21/58
Nos. 4215–4216 of 2002, State of Bihar and Another v. Radha
Krishna Jha and Others .
32. According to learned Senior Advocate, the
impugned action of the State Government, whereby the
petitioners’ status, rank and pay were downgraded, would cause
serious and irreparable prejudice to their service rights,
including their entitlement to pensionary benefits. It is argued
that an employee’s entitlement to pension, in accordance with
the rules applicable on the date of retirement, constitutes an
accrued right and cannot be retrospectively curtailed by a
subsequent amendment to the applicable rules, particularly after
the lapse of several decades.
33. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance
has been placed upon the three-Judge Bench decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salabuddin Mohd. Yunus v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, 1984 Supp SCC 399 .
34. Learned Senior Advocate further contended that
the impugned orders bearing Nos. 1616 dated 01.09.2017 and
141 dated 01.02.2018 were contrary to the protective directions
issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad Singh
( supra ). According to him, the direction that the existing status,
rank and pay of the appellants would not be disturbed, coupled
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
22/58
with the clarification that the designation of Demonstrator, once
conferred upon a Laboratory Assistant and continued till the
date of judgment, would not be withdrawn, was intended to
preserve the existing position of the persons covered by the
protection. It is submitted that the State Government could not,
under the guise of implementing the Bihar State Universities
(Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012, achieve indirectly what
the Hon’ble Supreme Court had expressly prohibited it from
doing directly. The impugned action, according to learned
Senior Counsel, not only undermined the aforesaid judicial
protection but also unsettled the service position which had
subsisted for years pursuant to the decisions of the competent
authorities and the consequential fixation of pay.
35. Advancing his submissions further, Mr. Srivastava
invoked the doctrines of promissory estoppel, estoppel by
conduct and legitimate expectation, besides the principles of
reasonableness, fairness and natural justice. It was submitted
that the State Government itself had issued letters bearing Nos.
1115 dated 14.06.2006, 1456 dated 01.08.2006 and 1261 dated
09.06.2008, pursuant to which eligible Laboratory Assistants,
Laboratory In-charges, Technicians and Technical Assistants
were redesignated as Demonstrators and corresponding pay
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
23/58
benefits were extended to them.
36. According to learned Senior Advocate, having
taken a conscious policy decision to redesignate the eligible
employees and having implemented the same through the
competent authorities, the State Government could not
subsequently withdraw or substantially curtail the benefits so
extended in an arbitrary manner, particularly when the
redesignation had been effected in the backdrop of the earlier
judicial pronouncements, including the judgment in Radha
Krishna Jha ( supra ).
37. It is further contended that the impugned action
was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
inasmuch as it resulted in hostile discrimination between
similarly situated employees. Several erstwhile Laboratory
Assistants, Laboratory In-charges and Technical Assistants, who
had been redesignated as Demonstrators prior to 05.10.1991,
had subsequently been promoted to the posts of
Lecturer/Assistant Professor or Reader/Associate Professor and
had continued to enjoy the corresponding status, rank and pay.
38. In contrast, the petitioners, who claimed to have
been appointed against substantive sanctioned posts and
subsequently redesignated and confirmed as Demonstrators, had
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
24/58
been treated as non-teaching staff and their status, rank and pay
had been downgraded. This, according to learned Senior
Advocate, is despite the fact that the petitioners had been
granted the relevant pay scales and their corresponding
replacement scales under governmental communications duly
implemented by the respective universities.
39. Drawing the attention of the Court to the decisions
rendered by this Court in the cases of Dr. Abdul Qudoos Ansari
v. Magadh University and Others , decided on 06.09.2018 in
CWJC No. 20397 of 2014 , and Dr. Suresh Prasad Yadav v.
State of Bihar and Others , decided on 11.09.2018 in CWJC
No. 15211 of 2012 , learned Senior Advocate submitted that the
rights of similarly situated employees, who had been
redesignated as Demonstrators prior to the cut-off date, had
received judicial consideration in the context of their entitlement
to promotion to higher teaching posts.
40. It is argued that the aforesaid decisions recognised
the entitlement of eligible employees, redesignated as
Demonstrators, to be considered for promotion to the posts of
Lecturer/Assistant Professor, Reader/Associate Professor and
Professor, in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions
and university statutes. According to learned Senior Advocate,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
25/58
the exclusion of Demonstrators from the definition of “teacher”
under the 2012 Amendment Act could not be applied so as to
nullify the rights and benefits already recognised in favour of
persons whose service position had been established prior to
05.10.1991.
41. With particular reference to Dr. Suresh Prasad
Yadav ( supra ), it is submitted that this Court had allowed the
writ petition of a similarly situated Laboratory Assistant, who
had been redesignated as Demonstrator and sought promotion to
the post of Lecturer and thereafter to the post of Reader.
Learned Senior Advocate submitted that this Court had
specifically noticed that the 2012 Amendment Act could not be
invoked to withdraw a promotion already granted by
notification dated 29.06.2011 and had consequently held the
reversion in question to be unsustainable.
42. It is further pointed out that the judgment rendered
in Dr. Suresh Prasad Yadav ( supra ) was affirmed by the learned
Division Bench in LPA No. 1706 of 2018 and the Special Leave
Petition preferred against the said decision was also dismissed
vide order dated 06.03.2020 in SLP (C) Diary No. 1935 of 2020.
43. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, learned
Senior Advocate submitted that the State Government could not
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
26/58
selectively deny the petitioners the protection of their existing
service status and pay while similarly situated employees
continued to enjoy the benefits attached to their redesignation
and subsequent promotions.
44. Mr. Srivastava, also drew the attention of the
Court to the position prevailing in the State of Jharkhand,
where, according to him, similarly situated Demonstrators had
continued to enjoy the benefits attached to their designation
without any corresponding disturbance of their status, rank or
pay. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the letter dated
13.04.2012 issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission
to the Registrar of Vinoba Bhave University. The treatment
accorded to similarly situated employees in Jharkhand, where
the corresponding statutory framework was stated to be
materially similar, further demonstrated the arbitrary and
discriminatory nature of the action impugned in the present
proceedings.
45. Referring to the Bench decision of this Court in
Laliteshwar Mishra v. State of Bihar , decided in CWJC No.
1377 of 2010 and analogous cases , Mr. Srivastava submitted
that the controversy concerning Laboratory Assistants,
Laboratory Technicians, Laboratory In-charges and Laboratory
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
27/58
Instructors working in various universities had arisen in the
backdrop of the decision taken by the State Cabinet on
06.06.2006 to redesignate eligible personnel as Demonstrators,
in the light of the relevant judicial pronouncements.
46. It is contended that, in the aforesaid proceedings,
this Court had examined the validity of Memo No. 12 dated
18.12.2008 and similar communications seeking to undo the
consequences of the earlier redesignation decision and had
found the impugned action unsustainable. According to learned
Senior Advocate, the effect of the aforesaid decision was that
employees who had been redesignated as Demonstrators and
had thereafter obtained promotions to the posts of Lecturer or
Reader, as the case might be, under the applicable university
statutes or otherwise, could not be reverted or deprived of the
corresponding remuneration by an executive decision contrary
to the governing legal position.
47. Learned Senior Advocate further referred to the
proceedings in CWJC No. 2002 of 2010, one of the analogous
matters considered along with Laliteshwar Mishra ( supra ), and
the subsequent appeal preferred by the State of Bihar in LPA
No. 981 of 2011, wherein the learned Division Bench had
categorically observed that, once the Government of Bihar had
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
28/58
taken a conscious decision on 14.06.2006 to redesignate
Graduate Laboratory Assistants, Junior Laboratory Assistants,
Laboratory In-charges, Lab Technicians, Laboratory Assistants,
Technical Assistants and similarly situated personnel working in
the laboratories of constituent colleges as Demonstrators, the
employees so redesignated would be entitled to the benefits
attached to the post of Demonstrator.
48. Learned Senior Advocate emphasised that the
expression “all benefits” was not confined merely to the
nomenclature of the post or the corresponding pay scale, but
also encompassed the right to be considered for promotion in
accordance with the relevant university statutes. The learned
Division Bench had upheld the claim of the writ petitioners on
that basis.
49. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions and
judicial precedents, Mr. Srivastava urged that the impugned
orders were liable to be set aside. According to him, their
continued operation would not only be inconsistent with the
protective directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Durga Prasad Singh ( supra ), but would also unsettle an
established service position and result in an arbitrary reduction
of the petitioners’ status, rank and pay. The impugned action
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
29/58
would place the petitioners at an unjustified disadvantage vis-à-
vis similarly situated employees who continued to enjoy the
benefits of redesignation and subsequent promotions, as
illustrated by the decisions in Dr. Abdul Qudoos Ansari ( supra )
and Dr. Suresh Prasad Yadav ( supra ). Learned Senior Advocate
accordingly prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and the
petitioners’ existing status, rank and pay be protected in
accordance with law.
50. The learned Advocate(s) appearing for the
intervenor-applicants, whose applications for intervention had
been allowed by separate orders of this Court, adopted the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Mr.
Purushottam Kumar Jha, further submitted that the intervenor-
applicants were similarly situated, inasmuch as their
appointments and subsequent redesignation as Demonstrators
had taken place prior to 05.10.1991. According to learned
Advocate, they had also been granted promotions and other
consequential benefits on the basis of their designation and the
applicable university provisions. It is contended that the State
Government had denied the redesignated Demonstrators
working in universities in Bihar the pay scales duly sanctioned
for the post, notwithstanding the protective directions contained
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
30/58
in the judgment dated 27.02.2017 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Durga Prasad Singh (supra). Such action
was contrary to the governing judicial directions and warranted
interference by this Court.
51. Learned Advocate for the intervenor-applicants
further disputed the stand of the State respondents that the post
of Demonstrator in the universities of Bihar had been abolished
w.e.f. 01.01.1975 vide Letter No. 1216 dated 18.09.1975.
Notwithstanding the issuance of the aforesaid communication,
the alleged decision to abolish the post of Demonstrator had
never, in fact, been implemented by the State Government.
Learned Advocate relied upon subsequent governmental
communications and decisions, pursuant to which various
laboratory personnel were redesignated as Demonstrators, to
contend that the State itself had continued to recognise and act
upon the designation. Accordingly, it is urged that the State
could not rely upon the aforesaid letter as an absolute bar to the
claims of the intervenor-applicants, particularly when
subsequent executive action and the treatment accorded to the
concerned employees demonstrated that the decision had not
been implemented in the manner now asserted by the State.
52. Per contra , Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
31/58
General appearing on behalf of the State, opposed the writ
petition and submitted that the same was liable to be dismissed,
inter alia , on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. It
is contended that the respective universities were indispensable
parties to the proceedings, since the petitioners were employees
of those universities and any direction concerning their
designation, pay fixation, service status or consequential
benefits would necessarily have to be implemented by the
concerned university authorities. In the absence of the
universities concerned, no effective or binding adjudication
could be made in respect of the reliefs claimed by the
petitioners. He accordingly urged that the writ petition was
liable to be rejected on this preliminary ground.
53. Addressing the merits of the controversy, learned
Senior Advocate took the Court through the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad Singh ( supra ) and
contended that the protection granted therein was confined to
the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and could not
be extended indiscriminately to all persons claiming to be
similarly situated. According to learned Advocate General, the
direction that the existing status, rank and pay of the appellants
would not be disturbed was expressly limited to the parties to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
32/58
that litigation. The judgment, therefore, could not be construed
as conferring a general right in rem upon every person who had,
at some point, been redesignated as a Demonstrator. It is further
submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had expressly
clarified that the appellants would not be entitled to any further
benefits inconsistent with the impugned Amendment Act. The
aforesaid qualification was material and could not be rendered
otiose by an expansive interpretation of the preceding protective
direction.
54. In support of his submissions concerning the legal
effect of orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in special
leave proceedings, learned Advocate General placed reliance
upon Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 .
55. Learned Advocate General further submitted that
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad
Singh ( supra ) had to be read in conjunction with the judgment
of this Court upholding the constitutional validity of the Bihar
State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012. It is
contended that the constitutional validity of the amendment,
including its retrospective operation w.e.f. 05.10.1991, had been
upheld. The amendment, according to the State, brought the
statutory definition of “teacher” into conformity with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
33/58
applicable UGC Regulations, which did not include
Demonstrators within the relevant category of teaching staff.
The protective direction in Durga Prasad Singh ( supra ) could
not be interpreted so as to nullify the effect of the Amendment
Act or restore, as a matter of general principle, the status of
teacher to persons whom the amended statutory definition
excluded from that category.
56. It is argued that the protection afforded by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was essentially preservative in nature.
The direction that the designation of Demonstrator would not be
withdrawn in the case of an appellant who continued to hold
that designation was, according to the State, intended to prevent
the withdrawal of the existing designation and not to confer
additional service benefits inconsistent with the amended law.
57. Learned Advocate General accordingly submitted
that the expression “status, rank and pay” had to be construed in
the context of the judgment as a whole and in a manner
consistent with the constitutional validity of the 2012
Amendment Act.
58. Developing the aforesaid argument, learned
Advocate General contended that the expressions “status”,
“rank” and “pay” could not be interpreted in isolation from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
34/58
statutory framework governing the service conditions of the
petitioners.
59. Placing reliance upon Roshan Lal Tandon and
Another v. Union of India, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 70 , learned
Advocate General, submitted that the service relationship of a
government servant is governed by the applicable statutory rules
and that the terms of such service may, subject to constitutional
and statutory limitations, be altered unilaterally by the
competent authority. It is argued that the designation of
Demonstrator, by itself, could not be treated as conclusively
establishing the petitioners’ entitlement to all the incidents of
service attached to teaching posts, particularly where the
statutory definition of “teacher” had subsequently been
amended with retrospective effect.
60. According to learned Advocate General, the
expression “status” referred to the legal relationship comprising
rights and obligations under public law, whereas the designation
of Demonstrator could, at best, be associated with the rank or
nomenclature of the post. The protection of a designation,
therefore, could not automatically be construed as a guarantee of
every financial or promotional benefit associated with the
category of teaching staff. The amended statutory framework
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
35/58
preserved a limited class of Demonstrators who satisfied the
conditions prescribed under the applicable provisions, including
the relevant cut-off dates concerning appointment and sanction
of posts. It is contended that the distinction between persons
appointed prior to 18.09.1975 against posts sanctioned before
01.01.1973 and those appointed thereafter was material to the
applicability of the statutory exception. According to the State,
the petitioners did not satisfy the aforesaid eligibility conditions
and, therefore, could not claim the benefit of the exception
merely on the ground that they had been redesignated as
Demonstrators before 05.10.1991. The retrospective operation
of the 2012 Amendment Act had to be given effect in
accordance with its terms and that the petitioners could not
claim a status inconsistent with the amended statutory
definition.
61. With regard to the decisions rendered by the State
of Jharkhand, learned Advocate General submitted that the
treatment accorded to Demonstrators in another State could not
determine the petitioners’ entitlement under the statutory
framework applicable in Bihar. Even if the UGC policy was
common, the extension of service benefits to Demonstrators
depended upon the applicable statutory provisions,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
36/58
governmental decisions and service rules. The grant of such
benefits by the State of Jharkhand, therefore, could not, by
itself, establish a universal entitlement to be treated as members
of the teaching staff or to receive all benefits attached to
teaching posts in Bihar. It is also contended that none of the
petitioners had been appointed prior to 18.09.1975 against posts
sanctioned before 01.01.1973, with the requisite concurrence of
the Bihar Public Service Commission or the Bihar State
University Service Commission, so as to fall within the
exception relied upon by them.
62. According to the State, the impugned orders had
been issued in implementation of the 2012 Amendment Act and
the subsequent governmental instructions governing the fixation
of pay of persons who did not fall within the protected category.
63. In this regard, learned Advocate General relied
upon Letter No. 1893 dated 22.10.2013, which, according to
him, prescribed the pay scale of Rs. 5,500–9,000 w.e.f.
01.01.1996 and the corresponding replacement pay scale of Rs.
9,300–34,800, with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200, w.e.f. 01.04.2007,
for the categories of employees specified therein, subject to the
applicable eligibility conditions concerning appointment against
sanctioned posts and possession of the requisite graduate
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
37/58
qualification in the concerned subject. It is, therefore, submitted
that the petitioners’ entitlement to pay had to be determined in
accordance with the governing statutory provisions and the
applicable governmental instructions, rather than on the basis of
the designation of Demonstrator alone.
64. Referring to the judgment dated 11.09.2018
passed in Dr. Suresh Prasad Yadav ( supra ), learned Advocate
General submitted that the said decision was distinguishable on
facts. According to him, the sole petitioner in that case had been
appointed on 15.09.1975, whereas the statutory exception relied
upon by the petitioners in the present case was confined to
persons satisfying the prescribed appointment cut-off date of
18.09.1975 and the other applicable conditions. None of the
petitioners in the present proceedings had been appointed prior
to 18.09.1975 and consequently, the aforesaid decision could not
be relied upon to extend the benefit of the statutory exception to
them. The judgment dated 06.09.2018 passed in Dr. Abdul
Qudoos Ansari ( supra ) did not support the petitioners’ claim to
the extent asserted, since, according to the State, the matter had
been remitted to the concerned university for consideration and
no unconditional mandamus granting the substantive relief
claimed by the petitioners had been issued therein.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
38/58
65. Learned Advocate General reiterated that the
principles governing the legal relationship between an employer
and an employee under public law had been explained by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Lal Tandon ( supra ). In this
regard, he relied upon the following proposition concerning the
concept of status:
“The hallmark of status is the attachment
to a legal relationship of rights and duties
imposed by the public law and not by mere
agreement of the parties.”
66. On the strength of the aforesaid principle, it is
argued that the petitioners’ service status and the incidents
attached thereto had to be determined in accordance with the
governing statutory provisions and could not be enlarged
beyond the scope of the applicable law merely by reference to
earlier administrative decisions or the nomenclature of the post.
67. Answering the claims advanced by the intervenor-
applicants, learned Advocate General submitted that persons
who had neither been granted the designation of Demonstrator
nor received the corresponding pay benefits, and who did not
otherwise fall within the protection recognised in Durga Prasad
Singh ( supra ), could not claim parity with the appellants in that
case. The claims raised by the intervenor-applicants were stale
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
39/58
and ought not to be entertained at this stage, particularly in the
absence of any legally enforceable entitlement to the reliefs
claimed.
68. On the aforesaid grounds, and for the reasons set
out in the counter-affidavit and the submissions advanced,
learned Advocate General prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
69. After having carefully considered the submissions
advanced on behalf of the respective parties and the materials
available on record, the principal issue that arises for
consideration is whether the impugned orders bearing Nos. 1301
dated 06.07.2017, 1616 dated 01.09.2017 and 141 dated
01.02.2018, issued by the respondent-State, impermissibly
disturb the status, rank and pay protected by the judgment and
order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Durga Prasad Singh (supra) , having regard also to the
judgment in Radha Krishna Jha (supra) , the relevant
provisions of the Bihar Universities Act, 1960 and the Bihar
State Universities Act, 1976, and the subsequent amendment
brought about in the year 2012.
70. At the outset, it is appropriate to deal with the
preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State regarding
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
40/58
non-joinder of the universities concerned. The impugned
communications have been issued by the State respondents, who
are already parties to the present proceedings. The universities,
insofar as the relief sought is concerned, would principally be
required to implement any directions issued by the State. Their
presence may assist the Court in arriving at a complete and
effective adjudication; however, on the facts of the present case,
they cannot be treated as indispensable parties whose absence,
by itself, would render the writ petition not maintainable. A
proper party is one whose presence may enable the Court to
effectually and completely adjudicate upon the questions
involved, whereas a necessary party is one in whose absence no
effective order can be passed. The preliminary objection raised
by the learned Advocate General is, accordingly, overruled.
71. The plea regarding stale claim also does not
persuade the Court, as some of the petitioners acknowledging
non compliance with the order dated 27.02.2017 passed in Civil
Appeal No.6178-6181 of 2015 [ Durga Prasad Singh ( supra )],
preferred Contempt Petition Civil No.2116-2119 of 2018, which
stood dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2019 by the Hon’ble
Apex Court. Thereupon, an application for recall bearing M.A.
No.246 of 2020 was filed, which was converted into Review
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
41/58
Petitions No.769-799 of 2021; and finally those Review
Petitions were dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to
avail alternative remedy as permitted in law, vide order dated
02.05.2023. The facts clearly demonstrates that the petitioners
and others were bonafidely pursuing their legal remedies.
72. It is not in dispute that the impugned
communications were issued in the backdrop of the Bihar State
Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 and the
judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Durga Prasad Singh (supra) . The
controversy must, therefore, be examined by reading the
amended statutory provisions together with the judgments
which considered their validity and effect, rather than by
considering any one provision or direction in isolation.
73. The object of the 2012 Amendment Act was to
remove the perceived ambiguity in the definition of “teacher”
under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and to bring that
definition in conformity with the standards and regulations of
the University Grants Commission. The Legislature proceeded
on the basis that the earlier, broadly worded definition had
enabled certain non-teaching laboratory personnel to be treated
as teachers despite not being appointed to sanctioned teaching
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
42/58
posts in accordance with the applicable statutory framework.
The amendment consequently narrowed the definition of
“teacher” and provided a specific saving for Demonstrators
appointed before 18.09.1975 against posts sanctioned before
01.01.1973, with the concurrence of the Bihar Public Service
Commission or the Bihar State University Service Commission.
The relevant amended provisions of Section 2(v) and Section 3
of the Act, as reproduced in the material placed before this
Court, read as follows:
“ 2 . Amendment in Section-2 of the Bihar
Act-23, 1976-Clause (v) of section-2 shall be
substituted by the following-
"(v) "Teacher" means person holding the
post of only University Professor/Professor,
Reader, and Lecturer and such sanctioned posts
in the teacher's grade on the basis of
regulations issued by the UGC from time to
time,
Provided, that notwithstanding the said
substitution in Section-2(v), the action taken in
respect of working Demonstrators appointed
before 18-09-1975 on the post sanctioned
before 01-01-1973 with the concurrence of
Bihar Public Service Commission or Bihar
State University Service Commission shall not
be affected by this substitution.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
43/58
3 . Overriding effect of the Act-
Notwithstanding anything contained contrary in
this Act of any other Act Ordinances, Rules or
decision of judgment of decree of any court the
provisions of this Act shall have overriding
effect.”
74. The constitutional validity of the 2012
Amendment Act was considered by the Division Bench of this
Court in CWJC No. 4395 of 2013, Akhauri Bijay Prakash
Sinha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., along with analogous
writ petitions . The challenge was founded, inter alia , on the
contention that the amendment retrospectively took away rights
said to have accrued to laboratory assistants under earlier
executive instructions and judicial pronouncements. The
Division Bench rejected that challenge and held that laboratory
assistants had no vested right, merely by reason of the earlier
broad statutory definition or administrative instructions, to be
upgraded as Demonstrators or treated as teachers. It further held
that the Legislature was competent to align the definition of
“teacher” with the UGC Regulations and that the retrospective
operation of the amendment did not, in the circumstances
considered, render the enactment unconstitutional. The relevant
observations of the learned Division Bench, as reproduced in the
material supplied, are retained below:
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
44/58
“19. Flows from the above referred
definition of teacher in Clause (v) of Section 2
of the Universities Act, the claim of the
Laboratory Assistants that they do possess the
higher qualification required for appointment
as Lecturer and that they do conduct classes.
Therefore, Laboratory Assistants also are the
teachers within the meaning of the above
referred Section 2(v) of the Universities Act and
a similar definition under the Patna University
Act, 1976 and certain judgments delivered by
the Patna High Court and the Patna High
Court (Ranchi Bench) in the writ petitions, the
Letters Patent Appeals and also of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court. The reliance is also placed on
st
the Circular dated 1 April 1969 issued by the
University Service Commission of Bihar in
respect of absorption of Demonstrators of
affiliated colleges. Under the said Circular, the
University Service Commission issued
directions/clarifications to the governing bodies
of the affiliated colleges. Although the said
direction/clairification was issued ostensibly in
respect of the Demonstrators in the colleges, in
fact, it issued direction in respect of Graduate
Laboratory Assistants for appointment as
Demonstrators in the affiliated colleges. It
appears that it was under the said Circular that
the Graduate Laboratory Assistants were re-
designated or were appointed as Demonstrators
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
45/58
who have approached this Court time and again
to treat them as teachers under the
recommendations made by the UGC and to
appoint them as Lecturer, Reader and Professor
in the hierarchy of teachers. The said Circular
was followed by a detailed instructions issued
by the University Service Commission on 26th
th
July 1969 and 12 December 1969. Reliance is
also placed on the Government letter dated
th
18th / 25 August 1972 indicating that the
decision of the Chancellor to the effect that the
Graduate Laboratory Assistants, if treated as
teachers, all rights of teachers would flow to
them and no restriction could be placed on such
rights. To us, it appears that the claim of the
Laboratory Assistants to be treated as teachers
on the basis of the aforesaid instructions issued
by the University Service Commission and the
wide/vague definition of teacher incorporated
in the Universities Act and the Patna University
Act is totally misconceived. At first, we have our
own doubts, whether the University Service
Commission had authority to issue such
direction. There is no material on record that
the said decision was backed by a Government
decision; second, in absence of detail enquiry of
each individual, the Laboratory Assistants
could not be treated as Teacher within the
meaning of then prevalent Universities Act;
third, no upgradation or redesignation could be
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
46/58
made without the approval of the University
Service Commission. Moreover, the
Government of India while revising the pay
scales of teachers had altogether different view
reproduced hereinabove. Except the bare
statement made in the writ petition, there is
nothing on the record that the Laboratory
Assistants before us are required to conduct
classes as part of their regular duty. In our
opinion, the claim made by the Laboratory
Assistants has no legal force. The claim is
contrary to the UGC Regulations, the
Universities Act, the Patna Universities Act,
1976 and the Statutes.
20. Section 57 of the Universities Act
provides for appointment of the teachers by the
Vice Chancellors on recommendation of the
Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges)
Service Commission. The said Commission was
enjoined to hold a qualifying test for
appointment of Lecturers in the
universities/constituent colleges/ affiliated
colleges. A similar provision is made for
appointment of teachers by Governing body of
the colleges (private colleges affiliated to the
universities) on recommendation of the College
Service Commission. The College Service
Commission is enjoined to make selection and
make recommendation for appointment,
dismissal and termination of teachers of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
47/58
affiliated colleges. Statute 7 also talks about
appointment of Lecturer, Reader, and Professor
in the colleges by selection and appointment.
Any attempt to absorb the Laboratory
Assistants as Lecturers, irrespective of the wide
definition of the term “Teacher”, would be in
contravention of the above referred provisions
of Sections 57 and 57A of the Universities act
and the similar provision contained in Section
57 of the Patna University Act, 1976.”
75. The legal position emerging from the aforesaid
judgment in Akhauri Bijay Prakash Sinha & Ors. v. State of
Bihar & Ors. (supra) must be appreciated in the light of the
historical and statutory framework governing the appointments
of Laboratory Assistants, Demonstrators and teachers in the
universities and colleges of the State. The claim for recognition
as a Demonstrator or a teacher was, inter alia , founded upon the
circular dated 01.04.1969 and the subsequent instructions dated
26.07.1969 and 12.12.1969 issued by the University Service
Commission of Bihar, as well as the Government
correspondence of August 1972. The Division Bench, however,
expressed doubt regarding the authority of the Commission to
issue such directions and noticed the absence of material
demonstrating that the same were backed by a Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
48/58
decision. It further observed that the prescribed qualifications
and the recommendation of the competent Commission could
not be dispensed with and that no upgradation or redesignation
could lawfully be effected without following the applicable
procedure. Consequently, neither the aforesaid executive
instructions nor the mere assertion that Laboratory Assistants
possessed higher qualifications or performed teaching duties
could, by themselves, confer an enforceable right to be
designated as Demonstrators or to be treated as teachers.
76. The subsequent developments in the regulatory
framework reinforce the aforesaid position. The UGC directive,
effective from 01.01.1973, restricted fresh appointments to the
posts of Demonstrators and Tutors and contemplated the
eventual abolition of such posts upon retirement or resignation,
subject to the applicable scheme for eligible existing
incumbents. The State of Bihar adopted the relevant restriction
by its decision dated 18.09.1975. The pay-revision framework
of 1986 also distinguished between recruitment to regular
teaching posts, which was to be undertaken through the
prescribed process of advertisement and selection on merit, and
the revision of pay scales for existing Tutors and Demonstrators.
The expression “existing incumbents only” in relation to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
49/58
latter category cannot be construed as creating a general right in
favour of persons belonging to other cadres to enter the teaching
service. These developments indicate that the post of
Demonstrator was governed by a restricted and transitional
framework and did not constitute an unrestricted avenue for
entry into the regular teaching cadre.
77. The statutory scheme governing appointments
under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and the
corresponding provisions of the Patna University Act, 1976
must also be kept in view. Sections 57 and 57A of the Bihar
State Universities Act, 1976, and the corresponding provision
governing appointments under the Patna University Act,
contemplate appointment to teaching posts through the
prescribed selection process and the recommendation of the
competent Service Commission. Likewise, Statutes 7 and 9
provide for recruitment to the specified teaching posts through
the prescribed process of advertisement and selection, while
Statute 11 contemplates consideration of eligible existing
Demonstrators for appointment or promotion to the post of
Lecturer, subject to its stipulated conditions, including the
requisite qualifications and the prescribed period of continuous
service. Such a limited provision cannot be enlarged to cover
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
50/58
persons who do not satisfy its requirements. The UGC
Regulations, 1991, which came into force on 05.10.1991,
further formed the regulatory background against which the
definition of “teacher” was subsequently amended. Read
together, these provisions do not support the proposition that the
performance of instructional duties, possession of academic
qualifications or administrative redesignation, in the absence of
compliance with the applicable statutory requirements,
automatically confers the legal status of a teacher.
78. It was against this background that the Bihar State
Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 was
enacted, with retrospective effect from 05.10.1991. The
amendment narrowed the definition of “teacher” to the specified
teaching posts and such sanctioned posts in the teachers’ grade
as are recognised under the applicable UGC Regulations, while
incorporating a limited saving in respect of qualifying
Demonstrators appointed before 18.09.1975 against posts
sanctioned before 01.01.1973, with the concurrence of the Bihar
Public Service Commission or the Bihar State University
Service Commission. In Akhauri Bijay Prakash Sinha ( supra ),
the constitutional challenge to the amendment was rejected. The
legal distinction recognised therein is that, although the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
51/58
Legislature cannot simply command that a binding judicial
decision be disregarded, it may, within its legislative
competence, validly alter the underlying law, including
retrospectively where constitutionally permissible, so as to
change the legal basis on which an earlier decision proceeded.
The retrospective operation of an enactment does not, by itself,
render it unconstitutional in the absence of an impermissible
infringement of a vested or accrued right or other constitutional
infirmity. The amendment, having survived judicial scrutiny,
must therefore be given effect in accordance with its terms.
79. The aforesaid statutory position must, however, be
harmonised with the express protective direction issued by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad Singh (supra) . While
declining to interfere with the judgment upholding the 2012
Amendment Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
“We, however, make it clear that the
present status, rank and pay of the appellants
will not be disturbed. If any Lab Assistant has
been given designation of demonstrator, which
he continues to hold till date, it will not be
withdrawn. They will not be entitled to any
further benefits in conflict with the impugned
Act.”
The aforesaid direction preserves the existing status,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
52/58
rank and pay of the persons covered by it and expressly protects
a designation of Demonstrator which continues to be held; at the
same time, it prohibits the grant of further benefits inconsistent
with the amended Act. The two parts of the direction must be
read together and effect must be given to both. The protection
cannot be rendered illusory by withdrawing a designation
expressly protected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; equally, it
cannot be extended to confer the status of a teacher or benefits
attached to a teaching post contrary to the amended statutory
framework. The expression “status, rank and pay” must,
therefore, be construed in the context of the protection actually
granted and the legal position of the person claiming its benefit.
The entitlement of the petitioners must accordingly be examined
with reference to the impugned communications, the conditions
of the statutory saving and the precise scope of the protection
afforded by the judgment in Durga Prasad Singh (supra) .
80. The impugned communications must be assessed
against this distinction. Letter No. 1301 dated 06.07.2017 and
Letter No. 1616 dated 01.09.2017 were issued following the
judgment in Durga Prasad Singh (supra) , and the latter
communication directed that entitlement to pay be governed by
Letter No. 1893 dated 22.10.2013. The said letter contemplated
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
53/58
the pay scale of Rs. 5,500–9,000 with effect from 01.01.1996
and the corresponding replacement scale of Rs. 9,300–34,800,
with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200 from 01.04.2007, for the categories
and employees satisfying the conditions specified therein,
including appointment against sanctioned posts in accordance
with the applicable norms and possession of the requisite
graduate qualification in the concerned subject.
81. The statutory saving, on the other hand, applies to
Demonstrators appointed before 18.09.1975 against posts
sanctioned before 01.01.1973, with the concurrence of the Bihar
Public Service Commission or the Bihar State University
Service Commission. The record and submissions, as presented,
indicate that the petitioners do not satisfy the aforesaid cut-off
conditions. Their redesignation as Demonstrators before
05.10.1991, by itself, does not bring them within the statutory
exception. The Court must give effect both to the limited
statutory saving and to the protective direction issued in Durga
Prasad Singh (supra) , without conflating the two.
82. Mere nomenclature or classification of a person as
a member of the teaching staff, or even the fact that such person
falls within the definition of a ‘Teacher’, does not, by itself,
confer an automatic entitlement to the rights, privileges and
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
54/58
benefits attached to the post of a Teacher. Such entitlement can
accrue only where the person claiming the status of a Teacher
possesses the requisite qualifications and has been duly selected,
appointed or absorbed in accordance with a legally valid process
prescribed or recognised under the applicable statute or law. The
mere performance of instructional duties, possession of
academic qualifications, or administrative redesignation, in the
absence of compliance with the applicable statutory
requirements, cannot, as rightly observed, confer upon such a
person the legal status of a ‘Teacher’.
83. The petitioners’ reliance on Dr. Suresh Prasad
Yadav (supra) does not advance their case beyond the limits of
that decision. As submitted and as appears from the material
referred to before this Court, Dr. Suresh Prasad Yadav had been
appointed on 15.09.1975 against a sanctioned vacant post of
Demonstrator, before the cut-off date of 18.09.1975. His case
thus fell within the statutory saving, and the decision granting
him the status and benefits of Lecturer was rendered in that
factual and statutory context. The petitioners in the present
proceedings have not established that they satisfy the same
conditions. The said judgment, therefore, cannot be treated as
authority for extending the statutory exception to persons who
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
55/58
do not meet its express requirements.
84. Likewise, in Dr. Abdul Quddus Ansari (supra),
the matter was remitted to the concerned University for a final
decision in the light of the observations made therein. No
material has been brought on record to establish what
consequential benefits, if any, were extended following such
reconsideration. In the absence of that material, the said case
does not establish an unconditional entitlement to the relief
sought in the present writ petition.
85. The reliance placed on Radha Krishna Jha
(supra) , the earlier provisions of the Bihar Universities Act,
1960 and the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, and the UGC
circular dated 06.01.1973 must also be considered in the light of
the later legislative amendment and the judicial pronouncements
upholding it. Those earlier instruments cannot be read as
overriding the valid and subsequently enacted statutory
definition. Nor can the doctrine of parity, including reference to
the treatment of employees in the State of Jharkhand, by itself
create an entitlement contrary to the applicable statutory
provisions in Bihar.
86. The State has also relied on the principle stated in
Roshan Lal Tandon (supra) , concerning the legal nature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
56/58
status in public service. The relevant proposition, as reproduced
in the supplied judgment, is retained verbatim:
“The hallmark of status is the attachment
to a legal relationship of rights and duties
imposed by the public law and not by mere
agreement of the parties.”
87. The aforesaid principle reinforces the conclusion
that the petitioners’ rights must be determined by reference to
the governing statute and the binding judicial directions.
Administrative decisions or the designation of a post cannot
independently enlarge those rights beyond the limits imposed by
the applicable law. Equally, the State remains bound to honour
the protection expressly granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in respect of the existing designation, status, rank and pay
covered by that direction.
88. The further contention that the post of
Demonstrator had been ordered to be abolished by Letter No.
1216 dated 18.09.1975 and Letter No. 1789 dated 26.08.1979
does not alter the governing legal position. The legal effect of
any subsequent redesignation must be examined in accordance
with the applicable statute and the decisions in Akhauri Bijay
Prakash Sinha (supra) and Durga Prasad Singh (supra) . An
administrative departure from the governing statutory scheme
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
57/58
cannot, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to be treated as a
teacher. The relevant extract from Akhauri Bijay Prakash
Sinha (supra) is the one reproduced above and is to remain in
the form in which it appears in the supplied text.
89. On a cumulative consideration of the statutory
framework, the judgments referred to above and the rival
submissions, this Court is of the view that the expression
“status, rank and pay” in the protective direction issued in
Durga Prasad Singh (supra) must be construed consistently
with the ratio of the judgment upholding the constitutional
validity of the 2012 Amendment Act. The direction protects the
existing designation of Demonstrator and the status, rank and
pay attached to that designation, where the claimant establishes
entitlement to such protection; it does not confer the status of
“teacher” or the benefits exclusively attached to teaching posts
under the amended Act.
90. Consequently, a person whose designation as
Demonstrator continues to be protected by the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot have that designation withdrawn
contrary to the express direction. However, such protection does
not entitle that person to claim a higher status or additional
benefits inconsistent with the 2012 Amendment Act. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.5241 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
58/58
petitioners have not established that they fall within the
statutory saving or the relief claimed can be granted without
extending the protection in Durga Prasad Singh (supra) beyond
its terms. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
petitioners, who are claiming themselves as redesignated
Demonstrator, shall be entitled to the status, rank and pay of
Demonstrator, as is extended to them under the impugned letters
and not at par with the Teachers, inconsistent to the provisions
of 2012 Amendment Act.
91. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no
merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
92. There shall be no order as to cost(s).
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 03.09.2026
Uploading Date 30-10-2026
Transmission Date