Arun Kumar Pandey vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1494 of 2023
======================================================
Arun Kumar Pandey Son of Ramdeo Pandey Resident of Village- Kamasi
Bazar, P.S.- Seikhpura, District- Seikhpura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director Secondary Education, Department of Education, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna.
5. The District Education Officer, Nalanda, District- Nalanda.
6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda.
7. The Managing Committee, Chakdin + 2 High School (Minority School),
Chakdin, District- Nalanda.
8. The Chakdin + 2 High School (Minority School), Chakdin, District-
Nalanda, through its Headmaster.
9. The Headmaster Chakdin + 2 High School (Minority School), Chakdin,
District- Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Madanjeet Kumar (GP-20)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-08-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“A. For issuing appropriate writ including writ
of certiorari and thereby quashing the order
dated 07.07.2022 (issued by Respondent no. 3-
Director Secondary Education) whereby and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
2/14
whereunder the proposal for approving the
appointment of the petitioner with effect from
date of joining i.e. 02.05.2015 has been rejected
by the Respondent No. 3 ignoring the fact that
Respondent No. 7 being the Managing
Committee of the Minority School (Chakdin+2
High School (Minority School), Chakdin,
District-Nalanda) is empowered to appoint
teachers through a resolution duly passed by
such committee.
B. For issuing appropriate writ including writ of
certiorari and thereby quashing the appellate
order dated 28.11.2022 (issued by Respondent
No. 2-Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna)
whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by
the petitioner against the order dated 07.07.2022
(Annexure-P/1) has been rejected; and the
rejection of proposal for approving the
appointment of the petitioner with effect from
date of appointment i.e. 02.05.2015 has been
upheld.
C. For issuing appropriate directions including
writ of mandamus and thereby directing the
respondents particularly Respondent No. 3 to
issue necessary directions modifying order dated
07.07.2022 (Annexure-P/1) to the effect that the
service of the petitioner is approved from the
date of appointment i.e. 02.05.2015.
D. For holding that the Respondent No. 7 is the
Managing Committee of the Minority Institute
which is whole and sole responsible and
empowered to appoint teachers and non-
teaching staffs through a resolution duly passed
by the Managing Committee any such rejection
of approval of the persons so appointed goes
against the mandate of Article 30 of the
Constitution of India.
E. For issuing writ including writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to accord approval of
service/appointment of the petitioner right from
his date of joining i.e. 02.05.2015 on which date
the petitioner had joined as Assistant Teacher on
the sanctioned vacant post of Sanskrit Subject
for which advertisement was duly published and
selection process was conducted by the
Managing Committee of the Minority School
(Chakdin + 2 High School (Minority School),
Chadkin, District-Nalanda).
F. For issuing writ of mandamus grant all
consequential benefit including grant of arrears
of salary (as also current/future salary) and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
3/14
other service benefits and emolument admissible
to the petitioner treating the petitioner to be
validly appointed from 02.05.2015.
G. The Hon’ble Court may pass any other
order/orders which it may deem fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case and within the
ends of equity, justice and good conscience.”
3. The brief facts which are necessary for adjudication
of the present case are that an advertisement was issued under
the signature of the Headmaster, the Chakdin + 2 High School
(Minority School) in the district of Nalanda in the year, 2015
whereby applications were invited for the post of Assistant
Teacher in different subjects, including Sanskrit. In the
advertisement the qualification prescribed for appointment was
Trained Graduates. The petitioner being a Trained Graduate,
submitted his application form and after being declared
successful, was issued appointment letter on 28.04.2015. He
was directed to join on or before 05.05.2015. In compliance
thereof, the petitioner gave his joining before the Headmaster of
the concerned school on 02.05.2015 and started working. In
terms of the rules, the matter with regard to approval of the
services of the petitioner and some others, were sent to the
competent authority of the State Government. The District
Education Officer, Nalanda by his letter dated 20.06.2020 asked
for the relevant documents with regard to certain teachers and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
4/14
with regard to the petitioner and one Archana Kumari. A query
was made that whether they had passed the examination for
STET or not. The required information was provided to the
District Education Officer, Nalanda wherein it was mentioned
that the petitioner had cleared the STET examination on
21.06.2021. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna vide his order contained
in Memo No. 857 dated 07.07.2022 rejected the proposal for
approval of the services of the petitioner on the ground that on
the date of application and appointment of the petitioner, he did
not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as an
Assistant Teacher. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order
dated 07.07.2022 passed by the Director, Secondary Education,
Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna,
preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority,
however, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide
Memo No. 1432 dated 28.11.2022, issued under the signature of
the Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated
07.07.2022 and 28.11.2022, the petitioner preferred the present
writ petition.
4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
5/14
submits that the petitioner being eligible in terms of the
advertisement, since the advertisement prescribed for
qualification of trained Graduate, submitted his application and
pursuant thereto, being declared successful, appointment letter
was issued in his favour. He gave his joining before the
Headmaster of the school and started working.
5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that in terms of Section 18(3)(Ka) and (Kha) of the
Bihar Government Secondary School (Taking Over
Management and Control) Act, 1981, the management of the
school has to make appointment on the teaching and non-
teaching posts and the same has to be sent for its approval to the
State Government. He submits that in terms of Section 18 of the
Act, the school sent the names of the petitioner and other
teachers for its approval before the competent authority of the
State Government, however, the Director Secondary Education,
Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, without
appreciating section 18 of the Act, proceed to reject the claim of
the petitioner on the ground that on the date of appointment, the
petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. He submits
that the qualification at the relevant time was only Graduate
Trained and so far the question of obtaining STET degree is
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
6/14
concerned, the same was applicable for the Panchayat/the
teachers being appointed by the Nagar Parishad/Zila Parishad
etc. He submits that since the qualification was required to be
fixed and the appointment was to be made by the Managing
Committee of the concerned school, the Committee prescribed
the qualification of Graduate Trained and the petitioner, being
eligible, was finally selected.
6. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further
submits that a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court vide order
dated 25.09.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18043 of 2014 (Shazia
Tarannum vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) in a similar matter
proceeded to set aside the decision of the State
Government/competent authority i.e. Director, Secondary
Education and remitted the matter back to the Director for
consideration afresh. He submits that the Director, Secondary
Education, by his order contained in Memo No. 1000 dated
03.09.2019 allowed the claim of the petitioner of the C.W.J.C.
No. 18043 of 2014 and treated her to be teacher w.e.f. the date,
she obtained Graduate Trained qualification.
7. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is entitled for similar relief, which
was granted vide Memo No. 1000 dated 03.09.2019 to similarly
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
7/14
situated person, inasmuch as that the petitioner passed STET
examination on 21.06.2021. He submits that since the petitioner
passed STET examination on 21.06.2021, at least the respondent
authorities should have considered his case for granting
approval from the date of his passing the STET examination i.e.
21.06.2021. However, in the present case the State authorities
have refused to grant the approval of the claim of the petitioner
on the ground that on the date of application, he did not possess
the requisite qualification for being appointed as a Teacher.
8. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State, while referring to the counter affidavit and
supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State-
respondents submits that the petitioner did not possess the
requisite qualification on the date of appointment and the
advertisement was also not issued in terms of the qualification
fixed by the State Government, for appointment of Teacher in
Minority school. He submits that as per Rule 18(3)(Kha) of the
Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over
Management and Control) Act, 1981, the appointment has to be
made by the Managing Committee of the concerned school,
however, the approval has to be given by the State Government
and the qualifications prescribed by the State Government are
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
8/14
required to be followed. In the present case, on the date of
appointment, the essential qualification, which was fixed by the
State Government, for appointment of Assistant Teacher for
Minority school was fixed as that of STET pass. Admittedly, on
the date of advertisement and selection, the petitioner did not
possess the requisite qualification, since she had passed STET
Examination on 21.06.2021. The learned counsel for the State
submits that as per the amendment made in Section 18 of the
Bihar Act 33 of the 1982 which is known as Bihar Non-
Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over Management and
Control) Act, 2011, it was provided that the Managing
Committee of the minority secondary school may appoint
teachers against posts sanctioned by the State Government as
per eligibility and criteria prescribed under the Bihar Nagar
Nikay Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers
(Employment) Rules, 2006 (as amended from time to time) and
the Bihar Zila Parishad Secondary and Higher Secondary
Teachers (Employment) Rules, 2006, after obtaining approval
from the Director through the District Education officer.
9. The learned counsel for the State submits that
although, amendment was carried out in 2011 itself, but the
concerned school without following the amendment, issued
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
9/14
advertisement for appointment of Assistant Teacher, wherein
qualification was prescribed as Graduate Trained. It is an
admitted fact that the petitioner passed STET examination on
21.06.2021, therefore, on the date of his appointment, the
petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. He submits
that the Director, Secondary Education, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna has rightly not granted
the approval of appointment of the petitioner, in terms of the
Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking over
Management and Control) (Amendment) Act, 2011. He submits
that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Director,
Secondary Education and the Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Education.
10. Having Considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that an advertisement was
issued by the school in question, wherein the qualification for
appointment of Assistant Teacher was fixed as Trained Graduate
and the date of Interview was fixed on 28.02.2015. The
petitioner admittedly being a Trained Graduate, submitted his
application and was called for interview. Subsequent to his
interview, he was issued appointment letter on 28.04.2015.
Pursuant thereto, he gave his joining on 02.05.2015. It is not in
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
10/14
dispute that on the date of advertisement, the Bihar Non-
Government Secondary School (Taking Over Management and
Control) (Amendment) Act, 2011 was there and in terms of
Section 3(b)(ii) of the 2011, of the said Act, the qualification for
appointment of Assistant Teachers in a Minority Secondary
School was fixed. Section 3(b)(ii) of the 2011 of the Bihar Non-
Government Secondary School (Taking Over Management and
Control) (Amendment) Act, 2011 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“(ii) The Managing Committee of the minority
secondary school may appoint teachers against
posts sanctioned by the State Govt. as per
eligibility and criteria, prescribed under the Bihar
Nagar Nikay Secondary and Higher Secondary
Teachers (Employment) Rules, 2006 (as
amended from time to time) and The Bihar Zila
Parishad Secondary and Higher Secondary
Teachers (Employment) Rules, 2006 (as
amended from time to time) after obtaining
approval of Director, Secondary Education
through District Education Officer. Disposal of
all pending cases for approval may also be made
by the Director, Secondary Education.”
11. It is also not in dispute that in terms of Section
18(3)(Kha) of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School
(Taking Over Management and Control) Act, 1981, the
qualification was to be fixed by the State Government and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
11/14
approval was to be granted by the State Government.
Rule 18(3)(Kha) is quoted hereinbelow:-
“( [k ) vYila[;d ek/;fed fo|ky; dh izcU/k
lfefr fo|ky; ds fy, jkT; ljdkj }kjk Lohd`r
la[;k ds Hkhrj jkT; ljdkj }kjk jktdh;d`r
ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds f”k{kdksa ds fy, fofgr vgZrk
ds f”k{kdksa dh fuq;fDr bl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10
ds v/khu xfBr fo|ky; lsok cksMZ ds vuqeksnu ls
dj ldsxh%
ijarq bl mi&/kkjk ds v/khu fdlh
f”k{kd dks fu;qfDr esa lgefr nsrs le; cksMZ dsoy
bl ckr dh tk¡p djsxh fd izLrkfor fu;qfDr jkT;
ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ,oa bl izk;kstukFkZ
cuk;h x;h fu;ekoyh esa fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ds vuq:i
gS ;k ugha vkSj fdlh vU; ckr esa iM+us vFkok
izLrko ds vkSfpR; ij mudks fopkj djus dk
vf/kdkj ugha gksxkA ”
12. So far the judgment/order relied upon by the
learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same
is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, since the said order
was passed in different context, inasmuch as that in the said
case, although post was there, however, the respondent
authorities did not consider the sanction of the post and rejected
the claim of the said petitioner. Further, so far the order passed
by the Director, Secondary Education, Department of Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna is concerned, the same cannot be
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
12/14
said to be based on any law or rule. The same was passed on his
own. The law in this regard is very much clear, in a recent
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1648 ( State of Himachal Pradesh and
Anr. vs. Jameet Singh & Anr.) and analogues cases, wherein it
has been held that the requisite qualification must be possessed
by a candidate as on the prescribed date of eligibility and the
appointment has to be made on the qualification prescribed by
the competent authority. In paragraphs no. 11, 12, 13 and 14, it
has been held as under:-
“ 11. We may now consider the objection of the
appellants that in service matters, fence-sitters
cannot ordinarily claim the benefit of a
subsequent development merely because they
may be similarly situated to persons who had
diligently pursued their claims before the
appropriate forum at the relevant time.
12. In the present case, there was no
representation whatsoever much less any
proceedings before an appropriate forum
initiated by the respondents until the judgment
in L.P.A. No. 105 of 2010 and its analogous
cases dated 13.12.2012. the cause of action
arose between the years 1998 and 2000. Thus,
approaching the Court after more than twelve
years, cannot be regarded as bona fide conduct.
13. Further, the respondents were aware of what
was ultimately held in the judgment dated
13.12.2012 in L.P.A. No. 105 of 2010 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
13/14
analogous cases, wherein the principle
governing payment had been clearly spelt out.
There is absolutely no explanation as to why
despite being aware of the said judgment, the
respondents, though not JBT Teachers, did not
specifically plead before the High Court in their
writ petition that their case was also covered by
the principle laid down in the proceedings
culminating in L.P.A. No. 108 of 2012. Even the
Division Bench of the High Court, while
disposing of the writ petition filed by the
respondents, granted relief in terms of L.P.A.
No. 105 of 2010 and analogous cases. Thus,
there can be no ambiguity or confusion with
regard to the intent and import of the order
passed in the case of the respondents.
14. We accordingly, hold that the order dated
10.01.2013 is required to be implemented in
accordance with the principle laid down by the
Division Bench in its judgment dated
13.12.2012 in L.P.A. No. 105 of 2010 and
analogous cases, that is, the respondents would
be entitled to the initial of the pay scale
attached to the posts of JBT Teachers, as revised
from time to time. Thus, the respondents would
be entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 6,400/- prior
to 31.12.2005 and Rs. 10,300/- with effect from
01.01.2006, as a necessary consequence of the
order passed by the High Court, which was
required only to be implemented.”
13. It is not in dispute that in the present case on the
date of appointment, the petitioner did not possess the requisite
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
14/14
qualification for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher, since
he did not possess the requisite qualification of STET pass and it
was the qualification fixed by the State Government, in terms of
Section 3(b)(ii) of the Amendment Act, 2011.
14. In view of the consideration made above, this
Court is of the considered opinion that on the date of his
appointment, the petitioner did not possess the requisite
qualification for being appointed as a Teacher. Even though he
was appointed on the basis of an advertisement, which itself was
illegal. The order refusing approval of the petitioner’s
appointment does not suffer from any infirmity. The orders
passed by the Director, Secondary Education, contained in
Memo No. 857 dated 07.07.2022 and the Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Education, contained in Memo No.
1432 dated 28.11.2022, do not suffer from any irregularity and
accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
vinita/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02.09.2026
Transmission Date