Patna High Court
Akhileshwar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the State Government must absorb the petitioners in accordance with the Justice S.B. Sinha Commission’s order and provide the requisite financial benefits.
Summary
The petitioners, former university staff, sought a writ of mandamus directing the State of Bihar and two universities to pay withheld salaries, arrears, and to consider one petitioner for a compassionate appointment. They relied on the 11 May 2016 order of the Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, which recommended absorption of eight senior employees, including the petitioners, based on inter‑se seniority. The State and universities argued that only six vacancies existed under the DRT category and thus excluded the petitioners, despite the Commission’s direction and the existence of nine vacancies. The court examined the Commission’s mandate, prior Supreme Court precedent (State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh, (2005) 9 SCC 129) and a prior Patna High Court order, finding the State’s selective absorption arbitrary and contrary to the Commission’s order. Consequently, the court directed the State to absorb the petitioners in line with the Commission’s recommendation and to allocate funds for any financial liabilities, including salary arrears and benefits to legal heirs. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the State Government’s refusal to absorb the petitioners, despite the Justice S.B. Sinha Commission’s recommendation, violates the Commission’s direction.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of withheld salary, arrears of salary and pension.
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for a compassionate appointment in the concerned college.
- Whether the State must allocate funds to meet the financial implications of the petitioners’ absorption.
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- absorption of employees
- university appointments
- seniority
- DRT category
- salary arrears
- compassionate appointment
- state government
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12163 of 2019
======================================================
1. Akhileshwar Sharma S/o Late Bindeshwar Sharma R/o K P 29, Kailash Puri,
Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh, Sampatchak, Patna-800020
2. Manmohan Singh S/o Ganeshwar Singh Thana-Koilwar, Post Office-
Rajapur, English village Rajapur, P.S. Koilwar, District-Bhojpur, Bihar
3. Madhuri Devi Wife of Late Manoj Kumar R/o Mohalla-Chiktoli, Mangal
Talab, Patna City, P.S.-Chowk, Patna-800008
4. Tarun Kumar S/o Late Manoj Kumar Rajak Mangal Talab, Chik Toli,
Sampatchak, Patna-800008
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department Secretariat, Bihar, Patna
2. The Director Higher Education, Human Resources Development
Department, Bihar, Patna
3. The Vice Chancellor Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Gaya
4. Magadh University through its Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya,
Gaya
5. Vice Chancellor Patliputra University, Kankarbagh, Patna
6. Patliputra University through the Registrar, Kankarbagh, Patna
7. Principal S G G S College, Patna City a Minority cum Constituent College
of Patliputra University
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sujeet Kumar Sinha
For the State : Smt. Binita Singh (Sc28)
For the M.U. : Mr.Sunit Kumar
For the P.P.U : Mr.Rana Vikram Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-01-2026
In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the
following relief(s):-
“ That this is an application for
issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.12163 of 2019 dt.13-01-2026
2/11
University to pay the with held salary of
petitioner no one and two from March 2009
as well as pay the arrear of salary and
pension to petitioner no. 3 and consider the
name of petitioner no. 4 for compassionate
appointment in Sri Guru Govind Singh
College, Patna City.”
2. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order
dated 11.05.2016 passed by Justice S.B.Sinha (Retd.) Commission,
New Delhi (herein after referred as 'Sinha Commission') on their
respective Claim Petition Nos. 573 of 2013 (Akhileshwar Sharma),
576 of 2013 (Manoj Kumar Rajak) & 563 of 2019 (Manmohan
Singh), submitted that the learned Justice Sinha Commission after
adjudication of all the claims, which were conjointly heard and
composite order is said to have been passed, in which Justice
Sinha (Retd.) has categorically recorded its findings that there are
06 persons, who were appointed on 26.06.1985, and they are
namely, Sri Rajeshwar Prasad, Sri Manoj Kumar Rajak
(petitioner), Shri Akhileshwar Sharma, Sri Raj Kumar Prasad,
Md. Abid Ansari & Sri Birendra Kumar, and similarly, two other
persons have been appointed on 06.07.1985 namely, Petitioner
No. 1 - Sri Akhileshwar Sharma & Petitioner No. 2 – Sri
Manmohan Singh. These 08 persons being senior, their cases may
be considered first, whereafter only the cases of other eligible
candidates to be considered in terms of their respective seniority,
Patna High Court CWJC No.12163 of 2019 dt.13-01-2026
3/11
and it has further been directed that for the determination of inter
se seniority, the University shall take into consideration, the
guidelines issued by this Commission in the case of Assistants, and
accordingly all the claim petitions were disposed of. It has further
been submitted by the counsel that these petitioners have
admittedly been receiving their salary since 1989, and even on
query being made by the University from the College in question
in 2014 itself, with regard to the status of vacancies, which was
categorically responded by the Principal of Sri Guru Govind Singh
College, Patna City vide letter dated 06.02.2019, that there are
altogether 19 vacancies as against DRT Category.
3. Counsel for the petitioners by taking this Court to the
order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the Sinha Commission that the
name of the Petitioner No. 3, who is represented by legal heirs of
the petitioner found place at Serial No. 2, is said to have been
appointed on 26.06.1985 but for no obvious reason, the name of all
these petitioners were singled out by the State Government while
directing absorption, wherein others who were appointed similarly
and despite there being findings of absorption by Justice Sinha
Commission, absorption was not directed by the State
Government. This matter was heard at length on 08.09.2025, and
Patna High Court CWJC No.12163 of 2019 dt.13-01-2026
4/11
this Court had passed the following orders, which is reproduced as
under:-
“Heard the parties concerned.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that pursuant to Annexure-7, which is said
to have been passed by Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.)
Commission, New Delhi vide order dated
11.05.2016, the claim petitions, filed by the
petitioners, have been considered and the Hon’ble
Commission issued directions in presence of State
of Bihar as well as the University wherein the
Hon’ble Commission was of the view that six
persons were appointed on 26.06.1985 who are,
Shri Rajeshwar Prasad, Shri Manoj Kumar Rajak,
Shri Akhileshwar Kumar Singh, Shri Raj Kumar
Prasad, Shri Md. Abid Ansari and Shri Birendra
Kumar. Similarly, two persons have been
appointed on 06.07.1985, namely, Shri Manmohan
Singh and Shri Akhileshwar Sharma and the
Hon’ble Commission after recording the name of
altogether eight persons directed that these eight
persons being senior, their cases may be
considered first, whereafter only the cases of other
eligible candidates should be considered in terms
of their respective seniority.
3. For determination of inter se
seniority, the University shall take into
consideration the guidelines issued by this
Commission in the case of Assistant and
accordingly, the said claim petitions were disposed
of.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at
this stage, takes this Court to vacancy position
which is at Annexure-10 and the relevant portion is
at page 57 of this petition, which is prepared by the
In-charge Principal of the College which goes to
show the vacancy position in the non teaching
cadre on account of certain staff being
promoted/retired/death or resigned.
5. On perusal of the said letter, it is quite
clear that more than eight vacancies are there and
all these recommendees could have been adjusted
Patna High Court CWJC No.12163 of 2019 dt.13-01-2026
5/11
against the said posts but for the reason
unexplained, their cases were not considered.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has further taken this Court to the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya MSESKK
Mahasangh reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 and
based on which, the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in CWJC No. 17670 of
2017(Akhilanand Singh & Ors. vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors) has passed an order, wherein, it has
categorically been observed that if the name of the
petitioners either in the list prepared by Justice
Agarwal Commission or in the list of Justice S.B.
Sinha Commission finds favour, then their cases
can be considered. The case of the petitioners is on
better footing where there is already a
recommendation by Justice S.B. Sinha
Commission, still the State has come out with a
reason stating that the names of these petitioners
were not in the list prepared by the Justice
Agarwal Commission, therefore, their cases cannot
be considered.
7. Even in the cases of such persons
whose names did not find place in both the list
prepared by the Justice Agarwal Commission and
Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, but their salaries
were paid on basis of the certain orders of the
State Government, their cases were considered and
this Court directed for their absorption. 8. Learned
counsel for the petitioners further submits that by
way of the rejoinder the specific stand taken by the
State as well as Patliputra University has been
elaborately answered in para-6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and
12. To this, leaned counsel for the State submits
that the copy of the said rejoinder has not been
served upon him. Accordingly, the learned counsel
for the petitioner under takes to serve a copy of the
rejoinder upon learned counsel for the State as
well as that of Patliputra University.
9. Be that as it may, let both the
Universities being Patliputra University and
Magadh University as well as the State to come up
with specific stand and appropriate steps taken
Patna High Court CWJC No.12163 of 2019 dt.13-01-2026
6/11
with regard to compliance of observation made by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases referred
above, for apprising the Court with proposed
action taken so that on the next date of hearing,
this Court can adjudicate the issue in question on
the basis fresh instruction taken in the light of
observations made hereinabove.
10. Post it after four weeks on
13.10.2025.”
4. Pursuant to the directions issued on 08.09.2025,
supplementary counter affidavit is stated to have filed on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, and the counsel representing Magadh
University, Bodh Gaya by taking this Court to Annexure-R/2
submits that the University in terms of the vacancy under
DRT/Promotion Category, on the basis of inter se (date of
joining/date of birth) had recommended the name of altogether
nine persons to be absorbed against the vacant post, their names
were namely, Uma Devi, Birendra Kumar, Raj Kumar Prasad, Md.
Abid Ansari, Akhileshwar Kumar Singh , Rajeshwar Prasad,
Manoj Kumar Rajak, Akhileshwar Sharma & Manmohan Singh, in
whose favour the recommendation for absorption were directed by
the Sinha Commission vide order dated 11.05.2016. But, the
Department of Education vide its letter no. 2177 dated 29.11.2018
asked the University Officials to re-look to the recommendation,
which was made by them and to make appropriate
recommendation for its compliance. It is the case of the University
Patna High Court CWJC No.12163 of 2019 dt.13-01-2026
7/11
that after having re-looked the issues, the matters of other similarly
situated persons including these petitioners were again sent for
absorption/regularisation vide Letter No. 223 of 2018 dated
05.12.2018, wherein, it was specifically stated in respect of these
petitioners including other’s that the earlier speaking order was
passed taking into consideration, the provisions for DRT in
Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal Commission report, which was followed by
Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission and in its order dated
11.05.2016 mentioned 06 posts fallen vacant under DRT category,
in fact 09 posts were fallen vacant, which has been mentioned in
the earlier speaking order. Following the above provisions for
DRT, the speaking order was passed for 09 persons taking inter se
seniority for adjustment in DRT category. With the stipulation that
If the Government wishes to consider only six posts in DRT
Category, may consider the claims of six persons as per their
seniority decided in earlier speaking order, and pursuant to such
stipulations made by the University, it is said that the Department
of Education came out with Office Order as contained in Memo
No. 98 dated 12.01.2019, appending list of referred cases and only
six persons from the recommended list were only considered
eligible for absorption, while the said list contained the number of
13 members, but for no prudent reason the name of these
Patna High Court CWJC No.12163 of 2019 dt.13-01-2026
8/11
petitioners, namely, Sri Akhileshwar Sharma, Manoj Kumar Rajak
(since died and duly represented by the legal heirs) & Manmohan
Singh, were not considered, while Justice Sinha (Retd.)
Commission, had directed for their absorption along with others.
5. The counsel representing Magadh University further
submits that vide notification dated 22.01.2019 appended as
Annexure-R/6, the persons so recommended for absorption by the
State Government excluding these petitioners, the appropriate
notification of absorption were issued by the University. On the
other hand, counsel for the State by referring to the stand taken in
the counter affidavit, does not dispute the factual position which is
said to have been stated by the Principal of Sri Guru Govind Singh
College, Patna City wherein it has been stated that there were 19
vacancies as against DRT Category. On the issues that the
recommendation which is said to have been made by the
University, wherein there had been specific stand that there was 09
vacancies and as per inter se seniority in terms of the observation
of Justice Sinha Commission, the name of these petitioners with
the names of other eligible candidates, for which the directions for
absorption were made, still absorption with respect to only six
persons were directed by the State under DRT Category, whereas
there were 09 vacancies, and considering such vacancies, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12163 of 2019 dt.13-01-2026
9/11
recommendation of these petitioners were also made, there is no
plausible answer before the State counsel for violating the
direction of the Commission, and directing absorption ignoring
these petitioners.
6. Considering the fact that Sinha Commission which
was constituted under the orders of Hon’ble Apex Court judgment
rendered in the case of State of Bihar vs. Bihar Rajya MSESKK
Mahasangh reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129, and the commission
having been constituted for addressing the issues of absorption of
such teachers, who were working in the respective colleges,
despite their being specific recommendation in favour of these
petitioners as against the existing vacancies, which were duly
identified by the University Officials, but for no prudent reason,
the State Government is said to have not considered the case of
these petitioners, whereas, they were also eligible for consideration
as against the vacant post for their absorption, in similar terms as
that has been done in the case of other six persons, whose names
also find place in the recommendation made by the University
vide letter dated 17.11.2018 as per the directions issued by the
Justice Sinha Commission in its order dated 11.05.2016, and as
such they have certainly made out a case of consideration for
similar treatment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12163 of 2019 dt.13-01-2026
10/11
7. Taking into account the fact that the State
Government in its response, has miserably failed to justify their
arbitrary action in making pick and choose, from the list of
recommendation made by the University dated 17.11.2018, which
was in consonance with the direction of Justice Sinha
Commission, wherein recommendation with regard to the
absorption of these petitioners as against the vacant post was also
made in their favour, but for no prudent reason, the name of these
petitioners have not been considered, accordingly, this Court
directs the State Government to consider the case of these
petitioners for absorption strictly in consonance with the
recommendation so made in favour of these petitioners by the
Commission, namely, Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.)
Commission vide its order dated 11.05.2016, and pass necessary
orders by extending benefits, for which these petitioner are also
entitled in similar terms, as that of other similar situated persons in
whose favour, the recommendation for absorption made by the
University were approved by the State Government vide letter
dated 12.01.2019, which forms part of supplementary counter
affidavit as Annexure-R/5 filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3
& 4 within a period of two months from the date of such
representation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12163 of 2019 dt.13-01-2026
11/11
8. The State Government is directed to take care of all
financial implications, which might accrue in settling the claims of
these petitioners, for which necessary funds shall be allocated to
the concerned University for carrying out necessary obligations as
per the requisition made in this regard.
9. It is needless to say that original employee, namely,
Manoj Kumar Rajak has since died and is being represented
through legal heirs, namley, Madhuri Devi (wife) & Taruk Kumar
Rajak (son) who are Petitioner Nos. 3 & 4, so the University will
take steps in settling the claim in favour of legal heirs mutually
after completing all legal formalities, without causing any
unwarranted harrasments to avoid further litigation.
10. With the above observation, the instant writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 17.01.2026
Uploading Date NA
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…