Patna High Court
Randhir SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court did not grant the writ; it directed the petitioner to file a representation and the authority to consider it before any order on regularisation.
Summary
Randhir Singh, an Instructor in the Adult Education programme of Bihar, filed a writ petition seeking his absorption in regular government service as a Class‑IV employee, invoking an earlier order dated 26‑10‑2016 in C.W.J.C. No.14302/2014 that had regularised supervisors. He argued that the same policy should apply to instructors and cited a similar case of Vijay Kumar. The State contended that the petition was for mandamus but no representation had been filed, which is a prerequisite for such relief. The Court asked the petitioner to file his representation within 30 days and directed the Director of Adult Education to consider it and issue a reasoned order within 90 days, stating that it was not expressing any view on the merits. Consequently, the petition was disposed of pending the filing of the representation.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to mandamus for regularisation without having filed a representation before the authority.
- Whether the policy applied in C.W.J.C. No.14302/2014 for supervisors must be extended to instructors.
Subjects
- regularisation
- mandamus
- representation
- adult education
- government service
- class IV
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1256 of 2022
======================================================
Randhir Singh S/o-Hardev Singh R/o-Vill-Post-Basantpur, P.S.-Jandaha,
District-Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secrertary, Old Secretariat, Patna
2. The Addiotional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Vikas Bhawan,
Patna.
3. The Aditional Chief Secrertary, General Administration Department, Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Director, Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The District-Programme Officer, Hajipur, Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra (SC-16)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-01-2026
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner with the following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of
direction/writ/order to the
Respondents to absorb the
petitioner in regular service who
was working as Instructor with
Adult Education, at least on class IV
post on the line as the respondents
absorbed the Supervisors of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1256 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
2/4
programme and as per order dated
26.10.2016 passed in C.W.J.C No.
14302 of 2014.
(ii) For issuance of
an appropriate writ/order/direction
to the respondents to apply same
policy in respect of the Instructors
of the programme and absorb him
in regular government service.
(iii) For issuance of
an appropriate writ/order/direction
to the respondents to take
appropriate action with regard to
the petitioner and appoint him on
Class-IV post as has been done in
case of Vijay Kumar, who was also
petitioner with the petitioner in
C.W.J.C No. 14302/2014.
(iv) To pass such
other order or orders as your
lordships may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the
case as stated herein below.”
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in brief,
submits that he is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the
light of order dated 26.10.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No.14302
of 2014. Counsel submits that since the petitioner has moved
Patna High Court CWJC No.1256 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
3/4
earlier before this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No.14302 of
2014, which was disposed off on 26.10.2016 and, therefore,
he comes within the purview of the decision passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court as it is a case where the case of the
petitioner has been entertained earlier prior to the decision
of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that
writ petition has been filed for issuance of mandamus but
representation is no where.
5. Upon the specific query of the Court to the
Counsel that where is the representation. Counsel submits
that though representation has been filed but copy of the
same has not been annexed. He submits that representation
has been made, but upon reading of para-20, it does not
transpire that he has filed specific representation. As such,
liberty is hereby granted to him to file his representation and
respondent No.4, the Director, Adult Education, Government
of Bihar, Patna, is directed to entertain the representation of
the petitioner, if he filed within 30 days explaining all the
situation, this Court is not hereby expressing anything on
merit. Respondent No.4, the Director, Adult Education,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1256 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
4/4
Government of Bihar, Patna, is free to consider every aspect
of the position and, then, pass a reasoned and speaking
order within 90 days from today.
6. With the aforesaid observation and
direction, this writ petition is disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 31.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…