Patna High Court

Nirmal KumarversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors

Decided: 7 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: AJIT KUMAR

Holding

The order of removal dated 10‑06‑2014 is set aside as it violates natural justice and the 2008 circular does not apply retrospectively; the petitioner is reinstated with full benefits.

Summary

Nirmal Kumar, appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1988, was dismissed in 2014 on the ground that his qualification from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was deemed invalid by a 2008 circular. The petitioner argued that no show‑cause notice was served and that the circular could not be applied retrospectively to his appointment. The Court examined whether the dismissal violated the principles of natural justice and whether the petitioner was required to exhaust the statutory appeal remedy before filing the writ. Relying on precedents such as Suryadeo Singh and Munni Devi, the Court held that the dismissal was illegal, the circular did not affect appointments made before its issuance, and the alternative remedy argument was untenable. Consequently, the order of removal was set aside, the petitioner was reinstated with full back‑pay and other consequential benefits, and the writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the dismissal of the petitioner without a show‑cause notice violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the 2008 circular invalidating the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan qualification applies retrospectively to appointments made before its issuance.
Whether the petitioner must first exhaust the statutory appeal remedy before approaching the High Court under Article 226.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and consequential service benefits.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226

Subjects

natural justice
service termination
reinstatement
writ petition
Article 226
education service
retroactive circular
appointment qualifications
alternative remedy

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12157 of 2014
======================================================
Nirmal Kumar Son of Sri Ram Das Saw R/o village- Sirkhindi, P.S- Hilsa,
District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamui, District- Jamui.
5. The District Education Officer, Jamui, District- Jamui.
6. The District Program Officer Establishment Education, Jamui, District-
Jamui.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Murari Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, AAG-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER

11 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2. The instant writ application has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

(i) For setting aside the order passed vide Memo
No.832 dated 10.06.2014 by the District Education
Officer, Jamui, whereby and whereunder the
respondent concerned has dismissed the petitioner
from the service of Assistant Teacher Primary
School, Guhia (Chakai), District- Jamui.
(ii) For directing the respondent to reinstate the
petitioner in the service on the post from which he
has been dismissed from service.
(iii) For any other relief(s) for which the petitioner
is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of
Patna High Court CWJC No.12157 of 2014(11) dt.07-04-2026
2/8

the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was initially appointed as Matric trained Assistant

Teacher vide Memo No. 7724-25 dated 25.04.1988, and after

having joined the duties, the petitioner was appointed as

Assistant Teacher in Primary School Badhmara in Khaira

Circle, Jamui, and in the year 1992, he was transferred from

Badhmara to Suhiya Primary School in Chakai Circle, Jamui,

and since then he was performing his duty regularly with full

satisfaction to all concerned. It is next submitted that vide

Memo No. 332 dated 18.12.2004, the respondent concerned

directed the petitioner to produce the document relating to his

appointment in order to get the same verified by the concerned

board, and till verification, the salary of the petitioner was

stopped.

4. It is next submitted that the petitioner approached

the Hon’ble Court vide CWJC No. 7076 of 2011, which was

heard and disposed of on 27.06.2012 with a direction to pay

legitimate dues within three months. The respondent concerned

did not pay the dues amount to the petitioner within time. In the

light of the order of this Court, the petitioner filed a contempt

petition vide MJC No. 5266 of 2012. The payment of salary
Patna High Court CWJC No.12157 of 2014(11) dt.07-04-2026
3/8

was thereafter made to the petitioner, but a departmental

proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Memo No.

871 dated 07.06.2012, and based on such enquiry, the petitioner

is said to have been removed from service vide Memo No. 832

dated 10.06.2014 in a mechanical manner, holding that the

petitioner had obtained appointment on the basis of a degree

granted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, which was not

applicable for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, by

referring to the Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2026, by

which the issues have been put at rest by the learned Single

Judge relying upon the judgment rendered in Suryadeo Singh

vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 28,

submits that in a similarly situated case, the learned Single

Judge in the case of Munni Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

(CWJC No. 13024 of 2019) has observed the following:-

6. Learned counsel further submits that
before issuance of the order of removal, no notice or
show cause was served upon the petitioner at any point
of time and the impugned letter is bad in law on this very
count itself. The petitioner has relied upon the order
passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC
No.4455 of 2017 and CWJC No. 16939 of 2018 in order
to show that in the similar mater the co-ordinate Bench
Patna High Court CWJC No.12157 of 2014(11) dt.07-04-2026
4/8

of this Court has allowed the writ applications filed by
the Primary Teachers on the similar facts. Learned
counsel in support of his argument also relied upon a
judgment of this Court in a case of Suryadeo Singh Vrs.
The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2011(1) PLJR 28.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
Respondents-State submits that there is an alternative
remedy of appeal. The petitioner may be relegated to the
remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the writ petitions and other
pleadings filed by the parties. From perusal of the
Circular dated 25.8.2008 vide Memo No. 3152, it is
evident that the certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan has been made invalid for the purpose of
appointment on the post of Primary Teacher with effect
from the date of issuance of the Circular dated
25.08.2008 and, admittedly, the petitioner has been
appointed prior to the date of issuance of Circular in the
year 2007. It appears that the degree obtained from the
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad was valid
for appointment in the year 2007 and a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in CWJC No.4455 of 2017 has taken
the similar Circular into consideration and has allowed
the writ application. I have also gone through the
judgment relied upon by the petitioner reported in 2011
(1) PLJR 28, paragraph-10 of the same is relevant and
quoted hereinbelow:-
“10. In the light of the
aforementioned submissions, the first question
Patna High Court CWJC No.12157 of 2014(11) dt.07-04-2026
5/8

which needs to be examined is whether the writ
petitions are maintainable in absence of the
petitioners not exhausting the statutory remedy of
appeal. It is not in doubt that both under the Sewa
Sharta Niyamavali, 1983, there is a provision of
appeal against the order of punishment, but then a
question arises as to whether both the writ
petitioners can be non-suited on the ground of not
filing their appeal against the impugned orders of
the removal of services before filing of the writ
petitions. This question, however, as with regard to
the maintainability of the writ application should
not detain this Court, in view of the fact that it is
an admitted position that as the orders of
punishment came to be passed without compliance
of the principle of natural justice. It is not disputed
by the learned State Counsel that the Director,
Secondary Education before passing the impugned
orders had not issued any notice and/or given any
opportunity of hearing. Therefore, once it is found
that the impugned orders have been passed in
complete breach of principles of natural justice,
this Court cannot shut its doors only because the
petitioners did not file their appeal. Way back, the
Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Md.
Nooh reported in AIR 1958 SC 86 had held that
writ applications under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India would be maintainable before
the High Court even in those cases where the
statutory remedy of appeal has not been invoked
by the petitioners when the order passed and
assailed is either in violation of the principle of
natural justice or is wholly without jurisdiction.
The aforesaid view of the Apex Court has been
reiterated from time to time in series of judgments
as was noticed by the Apex Court itself in the case
of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade
Marks Mumbai and Others reported in (1998)8
S.C.C. 1 wherein their Lordships had held as
Patna High Court CWJC No.12157 of 2014(11) dt.07-04-2026
6/8

follows:-
“……..Under Article 226 of
the Constitution, the High Court,
having regard to the facts of the case,
has a discretion to entertain or not to
entertain a writ petition. But the High
Court has imposed upon itself certain
restrictions one of which is that if an
effective and efficacious remedy is
available, the High Court would not
normally exercise its jurisdiction. But
the alternative remedy has been
consistently held by this Court not to
operate as a bar in at least three
contingencies, namely, where the writ
petition has been filed for the
enforcement of any of the
Fundamental Rights or where there
has been a violation of the principle
of natural justice or where the order
or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged ……..”

9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find
that before issuance of the order of removal, the
petitioner was not served with any show cause notice and
the letter impugned is violative of principle of natural
justice and accordingly the contention raised by the State
counsel that the petitioner may be relegated to
alternative remedy of appeal is not sustainable and
accordingly the same is rejected. The impugned letters
are also not sustainable on the fact that the petitioner
was appointed prior to coming into force of the Circular
dated 25.08.2008 by which the certificate issued by the
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, was
declared invalid.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12157 of 2014(11) dt.07-04-2026
7/8

6. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the learned Single Judge has declared that the impugned

order, which has been made applicable retrospectively, is

invalid, and the petitioner, admittedly, having been appointed in

the year 1988, is not covered by the said Circular dated

25.08.2008 issued by the Government of Bihar vide Memo No.

3152.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State does not

dispute the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner

and submits that the issues have already been considered in the

case of Munni Devi (supra), therefore, appropriate directions

may be issued for adjudication of the grievances of the

petitioner.

8. Considering the stand of the parties and the

Circular dated 25.08.2008 issued by the Government of Bihar

vide Memo No. 3152, the same does not cover the case of the

petitioner as he was appointed in the year 1988 as per the

judicial pronouncement, and as such, the impugned order dated

10.06.2014 as contained in Memo No. 832 is not sustainable in

law and is, therefore, set aside, and the petitioner is directed to

be reinstated in service forthwith.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12157 of 2014(11) dt.07-04-2026
8/8

9. Since the termination order has been held to be

bad in law and the petitioner was always ready to discharge the

duties on the post, but because of the impugned order the duties

could not be discharged by him, therefore, the principle of ‘no

work, no pay’ would not apply in this case. As such, the

petitioner is entitled to all such benefits at par with other

similarly situated persons who have been reinstated back in

service pursuant to the orders passed in the cases referred

hereinabove. Accordingly, the consequential benefits are

directed to be extended in favour of this petitioner on similar

terms as directed in the case of Munni Devi (supra).

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions,

the instant writ application stands allowed.

11. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…