Impugned withdrawal order kept in abeyance pending reasoned reconsideration of the petitioner’s representation.

The petitioner, claiming to be a founder and donor member of Kushwaha Somari Triloki Intermediate College, Salempur-Sohasarai, Nalanda, challenged Letter No. 879 dated 2 March 2024 issued by the Director (Education), Bihar School Examination Board, whereby intermediate-level education at the college was discontinued with effect from 1 April 2024 pursuant to Resolution No. 587 dated 21 February 2024.

The petitioner contended that the Intermediate College had no connection with KST Degree College and that both institutions possessed separate land, buildings, infrastructure and Governing Bodies. Reliance was placed on a Three-Member Committee’s enquiry report dated 15 March 2010, which found that intermediate and degree education were being conducted in separate buildings and under separate principals.

The petitioner also relied on an order of the Chancellor dated 5 June 2013 accepting the said position and stated that a detailed representation dated 25 September 2025 had been submitted to the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, but remained undecided.

The State defended the impugned action as having been taken after considering the available materials and in accordance with Resolution No. 587 dated 21 February 2024.

Whether the discontinuation of intermediate-level education at KST Intermediate College was justified when the petitioner asserted, supported by an enquiry report, that the Intermediate College and KST Degree College were separate institutions with distinct infrastructure and Governing Bodies?

Whether the petitioner’s representation dated 25 September 2025 required fresh consideration by the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, before the impugned order could be acted upon?

The Court applied the administrative-law principle that a competent authority must consider relevant materials and pass a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where an adverse administrative decision is challenged on the basis of material evidence.

The Court considered Resolution No. 587 dated 21 February 2024 as the basis of the impugned action, while directing that the decision be reconsidered in light of the Three-Member Committee’s enquiry report and other relevant materials.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s assertion regarding the separate identity and infrastructure of the Intermediate and Degree Colleges was supported by the Three-Member Committee’s enquiry report and the Chancellor’s subsequent order.

Since these materials could potentially undermine the factual basis for discontinuing intermediate education on the assumption that it was part of an affiliated degree college, the Court found that the petitioner had made out a case for fresh administrative consideration.

Rather than finally adjudicating the legality of the impugned order, the Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary to examine the petitioner’s representation, the enquiry report and any further materials, and to issue a reasoned and speaking order.

The impugned order discontinuing intermediate education was directed to remain in abeyance until the final decision on the representation.