Md. Asghar Hussain vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8585 of 2025
======================================================
Md. Asghar Hussain son of Late Abdul Ghani, resident of Village-Naya Tola
Babhangawan, P.O.-Banghara, P.S.-Vidyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director Mass Education cum Special Secretary cum Appellate
Authority, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna
3. The Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna, through its Chairman.
4. The Chairman, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna.
6. The President, Managing Committee of Madarsa Faizul Uloom Kawai
Banghara, Via-Dalsing Sarai, District-Samastipur (Madarsa no.145).
7. The Secretary, Managing Committee, Madarsa Faizul Uloom Kawai
Banghara, Via-Dalsing Sarai, District-Samastipur (Madarsa no.145).
8. Aisha Khatoon daughter of Ekramul Haque, Bathua Buzurg, Musri Gharari,
District-Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Adv
For the State : Mr. Government Pleader (16)
For Madarsa Board : Mr. Shahzad Hassan Khan, Adv
Md. Aslam Ansari, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 08-07-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application has
prayed for following relief(s):
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate
writ, order or direction for quashing the Letter
No.01 dated 09.04.2025 issued by Director,
Mass Education cum Special Secretary cum
Appellate Authority, Department of Education,

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
2/19
Bihar, Patna (Respondent no.2 hereof) on the
application of Respondent no.8 (hereof)
namely, Aisha Khatoon, for re-hearing of
Appeal No.08/2023 directing the petitioner
and others to appear before him on 07.6.2025
in the re-hearing of aforesaid Appeal No.08 of
2023 which has already been allowed by
Respondent No.2 himself vide order dated
08.10.2024 quashing the order dated
19.01.2022 bearing Memo No.513 and 514
issued under the signature of Secretary, Bihar
State Madarsa Education Board whereby
petitioner's selection/appointment as clerk at
Madarsa No.145 made by the Managing
Committee of Madarsa Faizul Uloom Kawai,
Banghara, Samastipuyr (Madarsa No.145)
was arbitrarily and quite malafidely been
cancelled/rejected and one Aisha Khatoon
private Respondent no.8 was appointed in his
place although her name was even not
empanelled by the said Managing Committee.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the Chairman, Bihar
State Madarsa Education Board Patna
(Respondent no.4) to approve the selection/
appointment of the petitioner as a clerk at
Madarsa Faizul Uloom Kawai Banghara,
Samastipur (Madarsa No.145) in the light of
the order dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure-10)

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
3/19
passed by Special Secretary cum Appellate
Authority, Department of Education, Bihar,
Patna (Respondent no.2).
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the Chairman, Bihar
State Madarsa Education Board Patna
(Respondent no.4) to approve the selection/
appointment of the petitioner as a clerk at
Madarsa no.145 made by the Managing
Committee of Madasa Faizul Uloom Kawai
Banghara, Samastipur (Madarsa No.145)
through a valid selection process on the basis
of guidelines of the Bihar State Madarsa
Education Board, Patna.
(iv) For issuance of an appropriate
writ, order or direction for grant of ad-interim
stay of the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by
the Director, Mass Education cum Special
Secretary cum Appellate Authority,
Department of Education, Bihar, Patna
(Respondent no.2).
(v) For grant of any other relief or
reliefs to which the petitioner may be deemed
entitled in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was duly selected for appointment to the post of Clerk in
Madrasa Faizul Uloomi Kawai, Banghara, Via Dalsingsarai,

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
4/19
District Samastipur (Madrasa No. 145), pursuant to a valid
selection process undertaken strictly in accordance with the
guidelines issued by the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board. It
is submitted that, upon the request of the Managing Committee to
fill up the vacant sanctioned posts, the Chairman of the Bihar State
Madrasa Education Board granted permission by Letter No. 2778
dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure-P/1) and directed that appointments
be made after publication of advertisement in newspapers and in
accordance with the prescribed procedure . Thereafter, experts
were nominated by the Board itself by Memo No. 2644 dated
03.12.2021 to participate in the selection process (Annexure-P/2).
4. It is submitted that, after due advertisement,
applications were invited for the post of Clerk and teachers. Out of
about 60 applicants for the post of Clerk, 19 candidates appeared
in the interview held on 27.12.2021 in the presence of the
members of the Selection Committee, the President and Principal
of the Madrasa and the experts nominated by the Board. The
proceedings of the interview and the tabulation sheet were duly
prepared and signed by all concerned (Annexure-P/3). On
evaluation of merit, the final panel of three candidates was
prepared (Annexure-P/4), wherein the petitioner secured the first
position. The Managing Committee, in its meeting held on

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
5/19
02.01.2022, resolved to recommend the petitioner's appointment
and to seek approval from the Bihar State Madrasa Education
Board (Annexure-P/5). Subsequently, by resolution/selection letter
dated 06.01.2022, the Managing Committee unanimously
approved the appointment of four teachers and the petitioner as
Clerk and forwarded the entire records comprising about fifty
documents to the Board for approval (Annexure-P/6).
5. Learned counsel submits that, despite the petitioner
having been placed first in the merit panel, the Chairman of the
Bihar State Madrasa Education Board, acting upon a complaint
preferred by respondent no. 8, issued a short notice contained in
letter no. 389 dated 14.01.2022 directing the petitioner and others
to appear on 19.01.2022 (Annexure-P/7). Owing to unavoidable
circumstances, the petitioner could not appear on the said date. It
is submitted that without granting any effective opportunity of
hearing and without examining the validity of the selection
process, the Chairman, by Memo Nos. 513 and 514 dated
19.01.2022, rejected the petitioner’s recommendation for
appointment made by the Managing Committee and directed
appointment of respondent no. 8, namely Ayesha Khatun, as Clerk
(Annexures-P/8 and P/8A). According to the petitioner, the said

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
6/19
action was arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice
and wholly without jurisdiction.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner initially
challenged the letter no. 389 dated 14.01.2022 by filing CWJC No.
1676 of 2022 before this Court on 25.01.2022. Since the petitioner
was unaware of the order dated 19.01.2022 at the time of filing the
writ petition , the same could not initially be assailed. During the
proceedings, the petitioner also brought on record affidavits
indicating that persons who had appeared before the Chairman on
19.01.2022 were informed that the matter had been postponed
owing to the absence of the petitioner, thereby casting doubt upon
the manner in which the impugned order came to be passed. This
Court, by order dated 21.11.2022, as corrected on 31.01.2023,
relegated the petitioner to the statutory remedy of appeal under
Section 28 of the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board Act, 1981.
7. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 8
of 2023 before the Special Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority,
Department of Education, Bihar. Learned counsel submits that the
Appellate Authority, after considering the entire matter, allowed
the appeal by order dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure P/10) and set
aside Memo Nos. 513 and 514 dated 19.01.2022 (Annexures-P/8
and P/8A). It is submitted that the said appellate order attained

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
7/19
finality and was binding upon the Bihar State Madrasa Education
Board.
8. It is submitted that despite the appellate order, the
respondent-Madarsa Board failed to act upon the same. The
petitioner submitted representations dated 14.10.2024, 28.10.2024
and 07.03.2025 before the Secretary and Chairman of the Bihar
State Madrasa Education Board requesting approval of his
appointment in the light of the appellate order. Since no action was
taken, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.02.2025
before the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department
(Annexure-P/12), followed by another representation dated
07.04.2025. It is pointed out that the Director, Secondary
Education, by Letter No. 687 dated 13.03.2025, directed the
Secretary of the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board to inform
the Department regarding the action taken in compliance with the
appellate order. However, according to the petitioner, the Board
deliberately failed to comply with the said directions.
9. Learned counsel further submits that, Respondent no.
8, thereafter filed a review petition before the Special Secretary
cum Appellate Authority, Department of Education (Bihar) for
review of the order dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure-P/10). The
Director, Mass Education-cum-Special Secretary-cum-Appellate

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
8/19
Authority issued Letter No. 1 dated 09.04.2025 directing the
parties to appear on 07.05.2025 for rehearing of Appeal No. 8 of
2023 (Annexure-P/16). It is contended that once the statutory
appeal had been finally decided, the Appellate Authority had
become functus officio and had no statutory power under the Bihar
State Madrasa Education Board Act, 1981 to review or rehear its
own decision. Consequently, the very initiation of proceedings for
rehearing was wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to settled
principles of law. It is on account of this reason that the Appellate
Authority itself, by order dated 31.07.2025, rejected the review
petition filed by respondent no. 8 and directed the Bihar State
Madrasa Education Board to take action in accordance with law.
The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-P/17. The
operative portion of the said order dated 31.07.2025 is quoted
herein below for needful:
“ lHkh i{kksa dks lquus rFkk vfHkys[k ij miLFkkfir lk{; ds
voyksdu ,oa foospu ds mijkar fo"k;xr ;kfpdk dks iqufoZpkj ds fcUnq
ij [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS ,oa fcgkj jkT; enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ] iVuk dks
fu;ekuqlkj fu.kZ; ysus gsrq okil fd;k tkrk gSA mijksDRk ds vkyksd esa
fcgkj jkt; enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ fof/klEer dkjZokbZ djsA ”

10. It is further submitted that the legal position
regarding appointments in recognized minority Madrasas is no

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
9/19
longer res integra. Learned counsel places reliance upon the
judgments of this Court in CWJC NO. 1692 of 1982 reported in
1985 PLJR 837 (AIR 1985 Patna 315) , as affirmed by the
Supreme Court in (1994) Supp. (20) SCC 509 , to contend that the
provisions enabling interference by the Board with the autonomy
of recognized minority institutions were declared unconstitutional.
Reliance is also placed on the judgments CWJC No. 1041 reported
in 1985 PLJR 870 and CWJC No. 5210 of 1983 reported in 1988
PLJR 1107, wherein this Court held that the Chairman of the Bihar
State Madrasa Education Board has no authority to discard the
appointments made by the Managing Committee and substitute
them with appointments of his own. It is thus contended that the
power of appointment exclusively vests in the Managing
Committee of the recognized Madrasa and not in the Chairman of
the Board.
11. Learned counsel submits that the allegations
regarding any irregularity or malpractice in the selection process
are wholly baseless. The entire process was conducted in the
presence of experts nominated by the Board itself; the petitioner
secured the highest marks and was placed at Serial No. 1 in the
merit panel, whereas respondent no. 8 did not even find place in
the final panel prepared by the Selection Committee. It is,

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
10/19
therefore, submitted that there existed no legal basis whatsoever to
ignore the petitioner's selection and direct appointment of
respondent no. 8.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that
while allowing the Appeal No. 8 of 2023 which had been filed by
the petitioner, the Appellate Authority had set aside the
appointment of Respondent No. 8. Thereafter, by order dated
31.07.2025, the same Appellate Authority, while rejecting the
review petition filed by Respondent No. 8 had directed the
respondent-Madarsa Board to take action in accordance with law,
which required the respondent-Madarsa Board to take a decision
on the issue of grant of approval of the petitioner’s appointment,
but instead of taking a decision on the issue of approval, the
Chairman, by Memo No. 1569 dated 17.12.2025, rejected the
petitioner's claim and, in effect, reiterated the earlier decision
appointing respondent no. 8 while keeping Memo Nos. 513 and
514 dated 19.01.2022 intact. According to the petitioner, the
subsequent order has been passed in complete disregard of the
binding appellate order and amounts to indirectly reviving an order
which had already been set aside. It is, therefore, contended that
the said order is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to
be quashed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
11/19
13. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel submits
that the actions of the respondent authorities in refusing to act
upon the binding appellate order and ultimately reaffirming an
order already set aside are arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of the
Bihar State Madrasa Education Board Act, the principles of natural
justice, and Articles 14 and 30 of the Constitution of India. It is,
therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and the
respondents be directed to accord approval to the petitioner's
appointment as Clerk in Madrasa No. 145.
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent
nos. 3 to 5 (Madarsa Board), while referring to the counter
affidavit filed in I.A. No. 01 of 2026, submits that the interlocutory
application seeks to challenge Memo No. 1569 dated 17.12.2025
issued by the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board whereby the
claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Clerk in
Madrasa Faizul Uloomi Kawai, Banghara, Samastipur, has been
rejected. It is submitted that the legality and validity of the said
order is a matter for consideration by this Court after hearing all
the parties.
15. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned
order dated 17.12.2025 has been passed by the Bihar State
Madrasa Education Board in compliance with the directions issued

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
12/19
by the Special Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Department of
Education, contained in the order dated 31.07.2025 passed in
Appeal No. 8 of 2023, whereby the review petition preferred by
respondent no. 8 was dismissed with a direction to the Board to
take action in accordance with law. It is contended that, pursuant
thereto, the Board reconsidered the matter on merit on the basis of
the materials available on record and passed a detailed and
reasoned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner while directing
maintenance of status quo with respect to the claim of respondent
no. 8.
16. It is further submitted that the order dated
17.12.2025 has specifically been made subject to the final outcome
of CWJC No. 8585 of 2025 and, therefore, does not suffer from
any arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference by this Court.
It is also contended that the petitioner has an equally efficacious
statutory remedy of appeal under Section 28 of the Bihar State
Madrasa Education Board Act, 1981 against the order dated
17.12.2025 and, without availing the said remedy, the petitioner
has sought to assail the order by way of the present interlocutory
application. On these grounds, it is submitted that the interlocutory
application as well as the writ petition are liable to be dismissed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
13/19
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds
that the principal controversy does not relate to the validity of the
selection process undertaken by the Managing Committee in the
first instance, but to the legality of the action of the Bihar State
Madrasa Education Board in refusing to implement the order
passed by the statutory Appellate Authority and thereafter
proceeding to re-examine the entire matter on merits.
18. The admitted factual position is that the petitioner
participated in the selection process conducted pursuant to the
permission granted by the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board
itself. The Board had issued the guidelines governing the selection
process, nominated experts to participate in the interview and
evaluation, and the petitioner secured the first position in the merit
panel prepared by the Selection Committee. The Managing
Committee, acting upon the recommendation of the Selection
Committee, unanimously approved the petitioner's selection and
forwarded the proposal to the Board for approval.
19. It further appears from the records that instead of
granting approval, the Chairman of the Bihar State Madrasa
Education Board, by Memo Nos. 513 and 514 dated 19.01.2022,
rejected the petitioner’s recommendation for appointment made

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
14/19
by the Managing Committee and directed appointment of
respondent no. 8. The said order was challenged by the petitioner
before the statutory Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 8 of 2023.
The Appellate Authority, by a reasoned order dated 08.10.2024, set
aside Memo Nos. 513 and 514 dated 19.01.2022. The legality and
correctness of the appellate order has never been assailed before
any superior forum. Consequently, the said order attained finality
and became binding upon all the authorities subordinate thereto,
including the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board.
The subsequent conduct of the respondent authorities-
Madarsa Board, however, does not inspire confidence. Instead of
acting upon the appellate order, the petitioner was compelled to
submit repeated representations before the Board as well as the
Education Department. Even the Director, Secondary Education,
required the Board to report compliance of the appellate order.
Despite such directions, the Board failed to take any consequential
action.
20. The matter assumes greater significance in view of
the subsequent events. Respondent no. 8 sought review/rehearing
of the appellate order. Significantly, the Appellate Authority itself
rejected the review petition by order dated 31.07.2025, since that
no statutory power of review or rehearing is available under the

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
15/19
Bihar State Madrasa Education Board Act, 1981. While dismissing
the review petition, the Appellate Authority merely directed the
Bihar State Madrasa Education Board to "take action in
accordance with law."
21. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
expression "take action in accordance with law" cannot be
construed as conferring a fresh adjudicatory jurisdiction upon the
Board to reopen the merits of the petitioner's selection or to
undertake a de novo evaluation of his recommendation for
appointment made by the Managing Committee. Such a direction
necessarily required the Board only to act upon the appellate order
by taking consequential administrative steps consistent with the
findings already recorded by the Appellate Authority. Once the
order dated 19.01.2022 stood set aside, the Board could not
indirectly re-establish the appointment of Respondent No. 8, which
the Appellate Authority had already nullified.
22. The submission advanced on behalf of the Board that
it was entitled to reconsider the petitioner's claim independently
cannot be accepted. A statutory authority exercising administrative
powers cannot sit in appeal over a binding order passed by its own
superior appellate authority. Permitting such a course would render
the appellate remedy wholly illusory and would strike at the very

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
16/19
foundation of the doctrine of finality of quasi-judicial decisions.
An authority to whom implementation of an appellate order is
entrusted cannot assume unto itself the power to reconsider issues
already concluded by the appellate authority.
The order dated 17.12.2025 (Memo No. 1569) clearly
demonstrates that the Board has not merely taken consequential
action but has re-appreciated the petitioner's recommendation for
appointment on merits and once again rejected his candidature
while continuing the appointment of respondent no. 8. This
exercise, in substance, amounts to reviving Memo Nos. 513 and
514 dated 19.01.2022 which had already been set aside by the
Appellate Authority. Such an exercise is wholly impermissible in
law. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be
achieved indirectly.
23. This Court also finds substance in the submission of
the petitioner that the power of appointment in a recognised
minority institution vests with its Managing Committee and the
role of the Board is circumscribed by law. The legal position
regarding the autonomy of recognised minority educational
institutions has already been settled by the decisions of this Court,
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case, the
selection process was initiated pursuant to the Board's own

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
17/19
permission, conducted in the presence of experts nominated by it,
and culminated in the petitioner being placed first in the merit
panel. No finding has been recorded by any competent authority
holding that the selection process itself was vitiated by fraud,
malpractice or violation of the prescribed procedure. In the
absence of any such finding, the Board had no justification to
disregard the recommendation of the Managing Committee and
substitute its own decision.
24. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner
ought to have preferred another statutory appeal against Memo No.
1569 dated 17.12.2025 also does not merit acceptance. The said
order is not an independent adjudication giving rise to a fresh
cause of action but is a direct consequence of the Board's refusal to
comply with the binding appellate order dated 08.10.2024.
Relegating the petitioner to yet another round of statutory appeal
would amount to compelling him to repeatedly litigate against
orders passed in defiance of the earlier appellate decision. The
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution is intended precisely to prevent such abuse of
administrative process and to ensure that statutory authorities act
within the bounds of their jurisdiction.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
18/19
25. The impugned order dated 17.12.2025, therefore,
cannot be sustained. The same has been passed without
jurisdiction, in disregard of the binding order dated 08.10.2024
passed by the Appellate Authority and contrary to the direction
contained in order dated 31.07.2025, which merely required the
Board to take consequential action, in accordance with law. The
Board exceeded its authority by reopening issues already
concluded by the appellate authority and by re-evaluating the
petitioner's recommendation for appointment on merits, an
exercise wholly dehors the statutory scheme.
26. Accordingly, Memo No. 1569 dated 17.12.2025
passed by the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board is hereby
quashed. The respondents-Madarsa Board are directed to give
effect to the order dated 08.10.2024 read with order dated
31.07.2025 passed by the Special Secretary-cum-Appellate
Authority in Appeal No. 8 of 2023 and to take all consequential
steps for granting approval to the petitioner’s appointment as Clerk
in Madrasa Faizul Uloomi Kawai, Banghara, Via Dalsingsarai,
District Samastipur (Madrasa No. 145), as recommended by the
Managing Committee. Such exercise shall be completed within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt or production of a
copy of this judgment.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8585 of 2025 dt.08-07-2026
19/19
27. It is made clear that the respondent-Board shall not
reopen or re-adjudicate the petitioner's case on merits, as all those
issues already stand concluded by the appellate order dated
08.10.2024. Their obligation is confined to just act upon the said
order in its true letter and spirit by granting approval to the
recommendation for appointment of the petitioner.
28. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order
as to costs.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kiran/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 06.07.2026
Uploading Date 08.07.2026
Transmission Date N/A