Patna High Court Administrative and Public Law Employment and Labour Law

Patna HC Dismisses Five Non-Formal Education Instructors’ Class IV Absorption Plea, Citing Earlier Order Disposing Of Their Writ As Infructuous

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided October 27, 2026Published 30 October 2026 at 7:27 pm IST2 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction requiring the authorities to consider their absorption into Class IV posts on the basis of their claimed service and qualifications

The court held

The Court declined to grant the requested mandamus and dismissed the writ petition, finding that no interference was required in light of the prior order.

01Facts

The petitioners sought mandamus directing the State to consider them for absorption into Class IV posts.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

They claimed to have served for more than three years as instructors under the Non-Formal Education Programme and to possess the requisite experience certificates and special education training

p. 2 · ¶ 2

They had previously filed CWJC No. 16606 of 2021, disposed of on 7 February 2024.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

They later submitted an application to the District Education Officer, Kishanganj, through an Assistant Director, Jan Shiksha, which they relied upon in the present case.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

The State sought time to file a counter-affidavit

p. 3 · ¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction requiring the authorities to consider their absorption into Class IV posts on the basis of their claimed service and qualifications

p. 2 · ¶ 2

ii.2. Whether the Court should grant relief in light of the prior order in CWJC No. 16606 of 2021, which recorded that the issue had already been decided in Civil Review No. 59 of 2018

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4–5

03Law Applied

The judgment identifies no statute or independent legal test governing absorption.

The Court relied on the prior order in CWJC No. 16606 of 2021, which recorded the petitioners’ submission that the issue had been decided in Civil Review No. 59 of 2018 and, on that basis, disposed of the earlier writ petition as infructuous.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4

The present judgment does not set out the holding in Civil Review No. 59 of 2018 or articulate a broader rule on absorption.

04Reasoning

The Court considered the prior order material because the petitioners were parties to the earlier proceeding and the present relief concerned the same absorption issue.

p. 4 · ¶ 5

In light of that order, the Court found no basis for interference in the present writ petition.

p. 4 · ¶ 5

It did not separately determine whether the petitioners’ claimed service, certificates, or training satisfied the criteria for absorption.

05Holding

The Court declined to grant the requested mandamus and dismissed the writ petition, finding that no interference was required in light of the prior order.

p. 4 · ¶ 5

LawLens.Patna High Court

Original Court PDF