Headmaster postings must follow manual, merit-cum-choice allocation based on candidates’ preferences, home districts, and vacancies.

The 54 petitioners, selected Headmaster candidates, challenged the posting order issued through Memo No. 46 dated 14 January 2026 by the Director, Primary Education, whereby they were posted at various districts.

They alleged that the allocation violated the mandatory principle of merit-cum-choice, the roster requirements under Advertisement No. 26/2024, and the directions previously issued by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 11252 of 2025, dated 30 August 2025.

The petitioners further contended that, despite the earlier judgment requiring consideration of objections, home district, reasons for seeking a nearby district, availability of vacancies, and merit position, the authorities had effectively resorted to randomisation under the guise of manual allocation.

They also alleged that postings had been confined to Utkramit/Newly Established Higher Secondary Schools, notwithstanding the Government’s decision to include other categories of schools.

The State relied on the Committee’s decision dated 20 August 2026, under which the allocation of 914 Headmaster candidates would be undertaken manually, considering their previously furnished choices, home district, availability of category-wise vacancies, and merit-cum-choice.

Whether the petitioners’ district/division allocation and posting were contrary to the principles of merit-cum-choice, roster requirements, and the directions issued in CWJC No. 11252 of 2025?

Whether the subsequent manual allocation exercise undertaken pursuant to the Committee’s decision dated 20 August 2026 adequately addressed the petitioners’ grievance?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to postings in accordance with the Government’s stated policy concerning the categories of schools in which Headmasters could be posted?

The Court applied the principle that allocation of districts/divisions must be undertaken in accordance with merit-cum-choice, while considering the candidates’ home district, previously submitted preferences, category-wise vacancies, and the nearest possible available posting.

It relied on the directions issued in CWJC No. 11252 of 2025, which required the authorities to reconsider allocation and address candidates’ objections by taking into account relevant factors including home district, reasons for seeking a nearby district, vacancy position, and merit.

The Court also took note of the State’s reliance on Rule 20(4) of the applicable Rules, 2021 concerning identification of posts for promotion and direct appointment, although it did not finally adjudicate that issue.

Once the State undertook to comply with these principles through manual allocation, the Court considered no further adjudication necessary.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ principal grievance concerned the alleged failure to implement the earlier judgment through a genuine merit-cum-choice-based allocation process.

However, the State placed before the Court the Committee’s subsequent decision to manually allocate the 914 Headmaster candidates’ divisions/districts by considering their earlier choices, home districts, category-wise vacancies, and merit position.

The State also furnished an undertaking that the petitioners would be posted in the nearest possible division/district in accordance with those criteria.

In light of that undertaking, the Court found that no further adjudication was required at that stage and directed completion of the exercise within the prescribed period.

The authorities were directed to complete the manual allocation/posting exercise, preferably within twelve weeks from 1 September 2026, by considering the petitioners’ previously furnished choices, home districts, category-wise vacancy position, and merit-cum-choice, with posting in the nearest possible division/district.

The Court clarified that neither its order nor the consequential posting order would prejudice the petitioners’ right to approach the competent authorities for any surviving grievance in accordance with law.