Patna High Court
Dr. Ravindra Kumar SohaneversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner’s 2011 appointment was substantive, not a tenure post, and that the 2025 office orders repatriating him were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of natural justice, thereby quashing them and restoring him to the post of Director, Extension Education.
Summary
Dr. Ravindra Kumar Sohane, a senior university professor, was appointed Director, Extension Education of Bihar Agricultural University in 2011 by direct recruitment. In 2025 the University issued orders reverting him to an "equivalent" teaching post and assigning his duties to another officer, invoking a tenure provision introduced in the 2010 Statutes (effective 2017). The petitioner challenged the orders, arguing that his 2011 appointment was substantive, not a five‑year tenure, and that the Statutes could not be applied retrospectively, nor could he be transferred without notice or hearing. The Patna High Court held that the Statutes operate prospectively, the appointment remained substantive, and the 2025 orders were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of natural justice. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders, restored the petitioner to his Director post with full benefits, and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for not specifically challenging the Board of Management's 38th meeting decision underlying the office orders.
- Whether the petitioner’s 2011 appointment as Director, Extension Education is governed by the statutes and service conditions at the time of appointment or can be treated as a tenure appointment under Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 notified in 2017.
- Whether the Board of Management’s decision and the consequential office orders repatriating the petitioner to an alleged equivalent post and authorising another officer to discharge his duties are legally valid, given the absence of an equivalent post, expiry of his lien, and lack of hearing.
- Whether the impugned action is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010, the applicable statutes and the principles of natural justice.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010 — s. 18, 19, 46(4)
Subjects
- tenure appointment
- natural justice
- arbitrariness
- discrimination
- service law
- Bihar Agricultural University Act
- Article 14
- Article 16
- Article 21
- direct recruitment
- repatriation
- statutory interpretation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16483 of 2025
======================================================
Dr. Ravindra Kumar Sohane Son of Late Sriram Sohane, residnet of B2-3,
Bhitti Colony, BAU Campus, P.O. - Sabour, P.S. - Bhitti, District- Bhagalpur,
Pin Code- 813210.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department,
Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur through its Registrar.
3. Vice Chancellor, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur.
4. Director, Administration, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur.
5. Registrar, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur.
6. Dr. Sushil Kumar Pathak University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist
(Agronomy), Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Raushan, Adv.
Ms. Shreyashi Raj, Adv.
Mr.ChinmayHarsh Karn, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Additional Advocate General (5)
Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG-5
For Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: Dr. K.N.Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Shailendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Sriram Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Amarjeet, Adv.
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Adv.
For Respondent No.6 Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 01-07-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application has
prayed for the grant of following reliefs:
“(i) Issuance of a direction, order or
writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing that part of the office order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
2/49
19/09/2025 bearing memo no. 753 issued under the
signature of Deputy Director, Administration,
Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur
(hereinafter referred to as "the University"), by
which in the purported compliance of the decision
taken by the Board of Management of the
University during its 38th meeting held on
18/09/2025, the petitioner has been posted against
an equivalent post at one Mandan Bharti Krishi
College, Agwanpur, Saharsa under the University
upon his reversion from the post of Director,
Extension Education under the University
allegedly upon completion of his tenure against the
said post;
(ii) Issuance of a direction, order or
writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing that part of the office order dated
19/09/2025 bearing memo no. 754 issued by the
University, by which one Dr. Sushil Kumar Pathak
University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist
(Agronomy) working in the services of the
University has been authorized to discharge the
duties attached to the post of Director, Extension
Education of the University along with the
administrative as well as financial powers of
Director, Extension Education;
(iii) Issuance of a direction, order or
writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the concerned respondent authorities
to allow the petitioner to continue in the capacity
of Director, Extension Education in the services of
the University on the basis of his appointment
having been made against the said post strictly in
accordance with law on the basis of the decision
taken by the concerned authorities under the Board
of Management of the University during the
relevant time way back in December, 2011 as is
contained in notification dated 14/12/2011;
(iv) Issuance of a direction, order or
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
3/49
writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the concerned respondent authorities
to allow the petitioner to continue in the services
the University against the post of Director,
Extension Education in accordance with law along
with all consequential benefits strictly in
accordance with the provisions contained under
the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010 as well
as the Statutes till the time he superannuates from
the services of the said University;
(v) Issuance of an ad interim direction upon the
concerned respondent authorities under the
University to refrain from giving effect to the
impugned order dated 19/09/2025 bearing memo
no. 753 and order dated 19/09/2025 bearing memo
no. 754 during the pendency of the present writ
application and the operation of the same be
stayed during the pendency of the instant writ
petition.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Scientist-cum-
Assistant Professor in Animal Nutrition in the erstwhile
Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa on 20.03.1991 and, over
the years, earned successive promotions to the posts of Senior
Scientist-cum-Associate Professor and thereafter University
Professor-cum-Chief Scientist on the basis of merit and
recommendations of the competent authorities. During his
service, he was also deputed as Director, BAMETI, Department
of Agriculture, Government of Bihar.
It is further submitted that while serving as
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
4/49
Director, BAMETI, the petitioner applied pursuant to
Advertisement No. 12/2011 (Annexure: P/1) issued by Bihar
Agricultural University, Sabour for appointment to the post of
Director, Extension Education. After undergoing a regular
process of direct recruitment, his candidature was recommended
by the duly constituted Selection Committee and approved by
the Board of Management. Consequently, by Notification dated
14.12.2011 bearing memo no. 1427 (Annexure: P/2), the
petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment to the substantive
post of Director, Extension Education. It is contended that
neither the advertisement nor the appointment notification
described the post as a tenure post or prescribed any fixed term
of appointment.
4. Learned counsel submits that at the time of the
petitioner's appointment, the Bihar Agricultural University
Statutes, 2010 had not come into force. The Board of
Management through a meeting held on 09/12/2010 had
resolved that until the new Statutes were framed and notified,
the Statutes of the erstwhile Rajendra Agricultural University
would govern the service conditions of the employees of Bihar
Agricultural University, Sabour. Under the applicable Statutes,
there was no provision treating the post of Director, Extension
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
5/49
Education as a tenure post. It is further submitted that although
the petitioner executed an agreement at the time of joining, the
same merely required him to abide by the Rules, Regulations,
Statutes and the Act of the University as applicable from time to
time and did not convert his substantive appointment into a
tenure appointment.
5. It is further argued that by a notification dated
14/12/2011, an agreement was executed between the petitioner
and the concerned authorities under the university and after the
petitioner joined as Director, Extension Education on
21.01.2012, the University itself consistently treated his
appointment as substantive. By Office Order dated 31.07.2015
bearing memo no. 601, it was specifically acknowledged that
the petitioner's lien on his previous post had expired on
21.01.2014 and that he continued in the services of Bihar
Agricultural University. Thereafter, by Office Order dated
27.01.2017, his pay was revised by granting advance increments
under the relevant service rules, recognising the higher
responsibilities attached to the post of Director, Extension
Education over that of a University Professor-cum-Chief
Scientist.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
6/49
Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 were published in the
Official Gazette only on 27.02.2017 and became operative
prospectively from that date. Clause 13.2(c), which provides
that the posts of Directors and Deans shall be filled by direct
recruitment for a tenure of five years, cannot be applied
retrospectively to appointments made several years earlier.
According to the petitioner, his appointment, having been made
in 2011 under the then prevailing statutory framework, could not
be altered to his detriment by applying a subsequently notified
provision.
7. It is further contended that the University itself
had consistently adopted this interpretation. In response to a
complaint received from the Governor Secretariat regarding the
petitioner's continuance, the University, by Letter dated
05.03.2021 (Annexure: P/7), categorically informed the
authorities that the petitioner's appointment was governed by the
Statutes prevailing at the time of his appointment and that
Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes,
2010 had no application to his case. Learned counsel submits
that the University had, therefore, accepted that the provision
regarding tenure appointments operated only prospectively.
It is next submitted that the same principle was
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
7/49
subsequently applied by the Board of Management in the case
of Dr. Mirazul Haque, Registrar of the University. Although an
order relieving him on completion of a purported tenure was
initially issued, the Board of Management, in its meeting held
on 08.08.2024, resolved that the provisions relating to tenure
appointments would apply only prospectively from the date of
publication of the Statutes in the Official Gazette and,
consequently, rejected the earlier view.
8. Learned counsel submits that despite adopting
this interpretation in an identical situation, the University
arbitrarily departed from its own stand in the petitioner's case
without assigning any valid reason, thereby subjecting the
petitioner to hostile discrimination. It is further argued that
despite the earlier decisions of the University, the matter was
again placed before the Board of Management in its 37th
meeting for obtaining legal opinion regarding the petitioner's
appointment. Thereafter, in its 38th meeting, the Board resolved
to treat the petitioner's appointment as tenure based solely upon
the agreement executed at the time of joining. Acting upon the
said decision, the impugned Office Order dated 19.09.2025
bearing Memo No. 753 (Annexure: P/11) was issued directing
that on completion of the alleged tenure, the petitioner be
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
8/49
reverted and posted against an "equivalent post" of University
Professor-cum-Chief Scientist at Mandan Bharti Krishi College,
Agwanpur, Saharsa and that his salary would be drawn against
such equivalent post.
9. Learned counsel submits that the impugned
order is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It is
contended that there exists no post equivalent to that of Director,
Extension Education in the College. The Director is a statutory
officer of the University whose position, under Section 18 of the
Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010, ranks above the Dean,
Registrar and other officers, whereas the post on which he has
been reverted to occupies an altogether different position.
Therefore, the direction posting the petitioner against an
equivalent post demonstrates complete non-application of mind.
It is further submitted that immediately thereafter,
by Office Order dated 19.09.2025 bearing Memo No. 754,
another officer, namely a University Professor-cum-Chief
Scientist, was directed to discharge the duties of Director,
Extension Education along with administrative and financial
powers. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was thus
effectively removed from a higher statutory office and replaced
without any authority of law. Learned counsel also contends that
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
9/49
the petitioner was never afforded any notice or opportunity of
hearing before passing the impugned orders. The orders,
therefore, have been passed in complete violation of the
principles of natural justice. It is further argued that after expiry
of the petitioner's lien in the year 2014, he does not hold any
substantive post to which he could legally be repatriated.
Consequently, the direction reverting him to an alleged
equivalent post is not only legally unsustainable but is also
incapable of implementation.
10. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned
action is contrary to the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010,
the statutory scheme governing appointments, and the consistent
stand earlier taken by the University itself. The action is alleged
to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds, learned
counsel prays for quashing of Office Orders dated 19.09.2025
bearing Memo Nos. 753 and 754, with all consequential
benefits, and for permitting the petitioner to continue as
Director, Extension Education in accordance with law.
11. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, namely the Bihar Agricultural
University, opposes the writ petition and states that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
10/49
petitioner has suppressed material facts, made incorrect
statements in the writ petition and has not approached this Court
with clean hands. It is further submitted that the petitioner has
an efficacious statutory alternative remedy under Section 19 of
the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010 by way of
appeal/representation before the Hon'ble Chancellor, which has
admittedly not been availed.
12. Learned counsel further submits that the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on the additional ground that
the petitioner has challenged only the consequential office
orders dated 19.09.2025 but has failed to challenge the decision
of the Board of Management taken in its 38th Meeting, whereby
it was resolved to repatriate the petitioner to the equivalent post
of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist. According to the
respondents, the impugned office orders merely give effect to
the decision of the Board of Management and cannot be set
aside independently.
It is also submitted that the central issue in the
present case is whether the post of Director, Extension
Education is a tenure post. Learned counsel contends that
although the petitioner was appointed pursuant to Advertisement
No. 12 of 2011, the advertisement itself clearly stipulated that
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
11/49
the selected candidate would execute a bond, could be
transferred to an equivalent post within the University and that
his service conditions would be governed by the University Act,
Statutes, Rules and Regulations as amended from time to time.
13. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's
appointment dated 14.12.2011 was purely temporary and subject
to probation for two years. It was specifically provided therein
that his appointment would be governed by the agreement
executed by him at the time of joining and by the Bihar
Agricultural University Statutes as revised from time to time. In
pursuance thereof, the petitioner executed an Agreement Bond
on 21.01.2012 expressly agreeing to abide by the Rules,
Regulations, Statutes and provisions of the University Act as
amended from time to time. It is further contended that no order
confirming the petitioner on the post of Director, Extension
Education was ever issued and, therefore, his appointment never
attained permanent status.
It is next submitted that prior to joining the post of
Director, Extension Education, the petitioner had already been
promoted in the erstwhile Rajendra Agricultural University to
the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist with effect
from 20.03.2008. The respondents contend that upon his
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
12/49
absorption in Bihar Agricultural University, his pay was merely
protected and re-fixed on the basis of such earlier promotion and
no advance increments were granted on account of holding the
post of Director, Extension Education, as alleged by the
petitioner.
14 Learned counsel for Respondent no. 2 to 5
further submits that after the establishment of Bihar Agricultural
University, the Statutes of Rajendra Agricultural University
were adopted only as an interim arrangement until the Bihar
Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 came into force. The said
Statutes were notified on 27.02.2017 and published in the
Official Gazette on 21.03.2017. Clause 13.2(c) thereof
specifically provides that the posts of Directors and Deans are
tenure posts for a period of five years. Since the petitioner's
appointment was expressly made subject to the Statutes as
amended from time to time, the said provision became
applicable to him upon enforcement of the Statutes.
It is further argued that the tenure provision has
been incorporated in conformity with the guidelines of the
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the Model
ICAR Act and the norms governing Agricultural Universities
across the country. Learned counsel submits that the University
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
13/49
was granted accreditation by the National Agricultural
Accreditation Board subject to adoption of the ICAR Model
Act, including the requirement that senior administrative offices
such as Directors and Deans should be tenure posts. Similar
provisions are stated to exist in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central
Agricultural University, Banaras Hindu University and the
Central Agricultural University, Imphal.
15. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner was absorbed in the services of Bihar Agricultural
University from his initial date of appointment and continued as
an employee of the University. Since the post of Director is both
an officer and a teacher under the Bihar Agricultural University
Act and Statutes, the petitioner's service conditions necessarily
became governed by the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes
after their enforcement. Consequently, upon completion of the
prescribed tenure, the Board of Management, after obtaining
legal opinion and considering the relevant statutory provisions,
resolved in its 38th Meeting to repatriate the petitioner to the
equivalent post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist.
It is further submitted that the petitioner has been
repatriated only to the post which he was substantively holding
before his appointment as Director, Extension Education. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
14/49
equivalent post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist was
available at Mandan Bharti Agricultural College, Agwanpur,
Saharsa and the petitioner has been posted against the said post
without any reduction in his pay scale, pay level or emoluments.
According to the respondents, the pay scale of Director,
Extension Education and University Professor-cum-Chief
Scientist is identical and, therefore, no prejudice has been
caused to the petitioner.
16. Learned counsel disputes the petitioner's
allegation that the University itself had earlier taken a contrary
stand regarding prospective applicability of Clause 13.2(c). It is
submitted that the communication dated 05.03.2021 relied upon
by the petitioner was merely a letter issued by the then Director
(Administration) and was not in conformity with the statutory
provisions governing the University. It is argued that the
subsequent decision of the Board of Management, being the
apex statutory body under the Act, alone governs the issue and
overrides any earlier administrative communication.
The respondents also dispute the petitioner's
reliance upon the alleged office order dated 14.08.2024
concerning Dr. Mirazul Haque. Learned counsel submits that the
said document is false and fabricated and was never issued by
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
15/49
the University. According to the respondents, the Board of
Management had in fact approved the repatriation of Dr.
Mirazul Haque after completion of his tenure and the relevant
proceedings and consequential communications have been
placed on record. It is, therefore, contended that there has been
no discrimination or inconsistent application of the statutory
provisions.
17. Learned counsel further submits that the Board
of Management considered the legal opinion regarding the
status of the posts of Director, Extension Education and
Director, Planning in its 38th Meeting and thereafter took a
conscious decision to repatriate the petitioner in accordance
with Clause 13.2(c) of the Statutes. It is contended that similar
tenure appointments have since been made to various posts
including Directors and Associate Deans-cum-Principals,
thereby demonstrating uniform implementation of the Statutes
throughout the University.
18. Responding to the petitioner's contention
regarding violation of natural justice, learned counsel submits
that the impugned action is merely a repatriation upon
completion of tenure in terms of the statutory provisions and the
conditions governing the petitioner's appointment. Since the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
16/49
petitioner was reverted to his previous substantive post carrying
the same pay scale and service benefits, no prior notice or
opportunity of hearing was required.
It is lastly submitted that no violation of Articles
14, 16 or 21 of the Constitution has been made out. The
petitioner has neither suffered any reduction in rank nor any
financial loss and has merely been repatriated to the equivalent
post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist in accordance
with the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010, the Statutes
framed thereunder, the terms of the advertisement, the
appointment order and the Agreement Bond executed by him.
Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the writ petition, being
devoid of merit, be dismissed.
19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 (State) submits that the grievance of the
petitioner essentially arises out of the decision taken by the
Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, whereby, in compliance
with the resolution passed in the 38th Meeting of the Board of
Management, the petitioner, upon completion of his tenure as
Director, Extension Education, was posted against an equivalent
post at Mandan Bharti Krishi College, Agwanpur, Saharsa and
another officer was directed to discharge the duties of Director,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
17/49
Extension Education.
20. Learned counsel further submits that by Office
Order issued under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Agricultural
University Act, 2010, the petitioner's previous service from
20.03.1991 was recognised and treated as valid after his
absorption in the Bihar Agricultural University. It is also pointed
out that the petitioner was granted advance annual increments
under the relevant service rules on account of the additional
responsibilities attached to the post of Director, Extension
Education, such benefit being admissible to a University
Professor-cum-Chief Scientist.
21. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner
was appointed in the year 2011 under the then existing Statutes
of Rajendra Agricultural University. At that point of time,
neither the advertisement nor the applicable statutory provisions
prescribed that the post of Director, Extension Education would
be a tenure post. It is further submitted that the Bihar
Agricultural University Statutes were notified only in the year
2017 and became effective from 21.03.2017. In view of Statute
1.2, the Statutes operate prospectively from the date of their
publication and do not have retrospective operation.
It is, therefore, submitted that although Clause
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
18/49
13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010
subsequently introduced a tenure of five years for the posts of
Directors and Deans, the said provision could not govern
appointments already made prior to the enforcement of the
Statutes. Learned counsel also points out that the University
itself, by Letter No. 1622 dated 05.03.2021 addressed to the
Governor Secretariat, had taken the stand that the petitioner's
appointment was not a tenure appointment.
22. Learned counsel further submits that Section
46(4) of the Bihar Agricultural University Act protects the
service conditions of employees upon reorganisation of the
University and does not permit any adverse alteration in such
conditions to the detriment of an employee. It is also submitted
that the Agriculture Department was not supplied with the
agenda papers relating to the meetings of the Board of
Management within the time prescribed under the Act and the
relevant Rules. The Department had received only the minutes
of the 38th Meeting without the agenda papers and, therefore,
had requested the University to postpone the meeting. It is
further submitted that no representative of the Agriculture
Department participated in the 38th Meeting. Similar requests
had earlier been made by the Department seeking the agenda
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
19/49
papers for the 37th Meeting of the Board of Management, but
the same were not furnished by the University despite repeated
communications.
ISSUES IN QUESTION:
1.Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed
on the ground that the petitioner has challenged only the
consequential Office Orders dated 19.09.2025 without
specifically assailing the decision of the Board of Management
taken in its 38th Meeting, which constitutes the foundation of
the impugned action?
2. Whether the appointment of the petitioner to the
post of Director, Extension Education, made through direct
recruitment in the year 2011, is governed by the Statutes and
service conditions existing on the date of his appointment, or
whether Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University
Statutes, 2010, notified in the year 2017, can be applied to treat
his appointment as a tenure appointment of five years?
3. Whether the decision of the Board of
Management and the consequential Office Orders dated
19.09.2025 repatriating the petitioner to an alleged equivalent
post and authorising another officer to discharge the duties of
Director, Extension Education are legally valid, particularly in
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
20/49
light of the petitioner's claim that no equivalent post exists, his
lien had already expired, and no opportunity of hearing was
afforded to him?
4. Whether the impugned action of the University
is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the Bihar
Agricultural University Act, 2010, the applicable Statutes and
the principles of natural justice, particularly in view of the
University's earlier stand regarding the prospective operation of
the 2017 Statutes and its alleged treatment of similarly situated
officers?
FINDINGS:
Issue No. 1: Whether the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has challenged
only the consequential Office Orders dated 19.09.2025
without specifically assailing the decision of the Board of
Management taken in its 38th Meeting, which constitutes
the foundation of the impugned action?
Finding on Issue No: 1
It has been submitted by the respondent-University
that the decision to repatriate the petitioner from the post of
Director, Extension Education was taken by the Board of
Management in its 38th Meeting and the said decision was
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
21/49
communicated vide Memo No. MB (38) Registrar/BAU
Sabour/96 dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure-R/I). According to the
respondents, the Office Orders dated 19.09.2025 are merely
consequential orders issued in implementation of the aforesaid
decision. It is, therefore, contended that in absence of any
specific challenge to the decision of the Board of Management
itself, the writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be
dismissed on this ground alone.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the objection raised by the respondents is wholly
technical and does not go to the root of the matter. It is
contended that the petitioner has specifically challenged the
orders dated 19.09.2025 by which his legal rights have been
affected and civil consequences have ensued. Once the
consequential orders implementing the decision of the Board of
Management are under challenge, the legality, validity and
correctness of the decision forming the basis thereof necessarily
become subject to judicial review. Merely because the petitioner
has not separately sought quashing of the minutes or resolution
of the 38th Meeting cannot render the writ petition non-
maintainable.
Having considered the rival submissions, this Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
22/49
finds no merit in the objection raised by the respondents.
It is well settled that a writ court is concerned with
the legality of the action complained of and not merely with the
form in which relief has been couched. The Office Orders dated
19.09.2025 are not independent administrative actions but are
the direct implementation of the decision allegedly taken in the
38th Meeting of the Board of Management. Therefore, once the
consequential orders have been assailed as being contrary to
law, the Court is competent to examine the validity of the
foundational decision on which those orders are based. If the
foundation itself is found to be legally unsustainable, the
consequential orders cannot survive merely because the
foundational decision has not been separately challenged in
explicit terms.
This Court also finds it significant that Respondent
No.1, namely the State Government, has itself brought on record
circumstances casting doubt on the manner in which the 38th
Meeting of the Board of Management was conducted. In its
counter affidavit, the State has categorically stated that the
Agriculture Department had received only the minutes of the
proposed meeting and not the agenda papers. It has further been
stated that the Department, by Letter No. 4248 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
23/49
15.09.2025, requested the University to defer the meeting, as the
agenda had not been supplied in accordance with the prescribed
procedure. It has also been specifically pleaded that no
representative of the Agriculture Department participated in the
38th Meeting and that despite earlier communications, even the
agenda of the 37th Meeting had not been furnished by the
University. These averments have not been satisfactorily
explained by the respondent University.
Though this Court is not deciding the legality of the
38th Meeting solely on the aforesaid procedural aspects, these
facts undoubtedly provide sufficient reason to examine the
consequential action with greater scrutiny rather than rejecting
the writ petition on a technical objection.
More importantly, the real controversy involved in
the present case is not confined to the validity of a resolution
passed by the Board of Management. The principal issue
requiring adjudication is whether the appointment of the
petitioner made in the year 2011 could legally be converted into
a tenure appointment by applying Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar
Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 after its publication in the
year 2017. That issue raises substantial questions concerning the
interpretation of the statutory provisions, the service rights of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
24/49
the petitioner and the legality of the University's action. Such
questions cannot be left undecided merely because the petitioner
has challenged the consequential orders instead of separately
challenging the Board resolution.
It is equally relevant to note that the decision of the
Board of Management by itself did not alter the petitioner's
service conditions. It was only after issuance of the Office
Orders dated 19.09.2025 that the petitioner was actually
repatriated and another officer was authorised to discharge the
functions of Director, Extension Education. It is these office
orders which gave rise to the immediate cause of action and
adversely affected the petitioner's rights. The challenge to those
orders, therefore, is sufficient to invite judicial review of the
decision on which they are founded.
The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution is intended to advance substantial justice and
not to defeat legitimate grievances on hyper-technical grounds
of pleadings. Where the legality of the consequential orders
necessarily depends upon the legality of the foundational
decision, the Court is fully competent to examine both while
adjudicating the writ petition. It is clarified that the aforesaid
view is expressed in the special factual matrix of the case and
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
25/49
shall not be treated as a general proposition of law for other
cases in which the cause of action complained of is not based on
complete lack of foundational pleadings.
Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the
petitioner. This Court holds that the writ petition cannot be
dismissed merely because the petitioner has not specifically
challenged the decision of the Board of Management taken in its
38th Meeting. The objection raised by the respondents is
technical and superficial in nature. Since the impugned Office
Orders dated 19.09.2025 are founded upon the said decision and
have given rise to the civil consequences complained of, this
Court is competent to examine the legality of the entire
decision-making process while exercising its writ jurisdiction.
The objection, therefore, stands rejected.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the appointment of the petitioner to the
post of Director, Extension Education, made through direct
recruitment in the year 2011, is governed by the Statutes and
service conditions existing on the date of his appointment, or
whether Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University
Statutes, 2010, notified in the year 2017, can be applied to
treat his appointment as a tenure appointment of five years?
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
26/49
Finding on Issue No. 2: This issue goes to the root
of the present controversy. The answer to this issue depends
upon the nature of the petitioner's appointment, the statutory
framework prevailing on the date of his appointment, the effect
of the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 notified
subsequently and the intention of the University as reflected
from its own records.
The admitted facts are that the petitioner was
appointed as Director, Extension Education pursuant to
Advertisement No. 12 of 2011 issued by Bihar Agricultural
University, Sabour. It is also not in dispute that after undergoing
a regular process of selection, his appointment was approved by
the Board of Management and Notification dated 14.12.2011
was issued appointing him by way of direct recruitment against
the post of Director, Extension Education. The petitioner joined
the said post on 21.01.2012.
A perusal of Advertisement No. 12 of 2011
(Annexure-P/1) does not disclose that the post of Director,
Extension Education was advertised as a tenure post. Neither the
advertisement nor the eligibility conditions nor any of the terms
and conditions stipulated that the appointment would
automatically come to an end after expiry of five years or any
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
27/49
other fixed period. The respondents have placed considerable
reliance upon Clauses 11, 13 and 14 of the advertisement, which
required the selected candidate to execute a bond, permitted
transfer to an equivalent post and provided that the service
conditions would be governed by the Act, Statutes, Rules and
Regulations as amended from time to time. Likewise, reliance
has been placed upon Clause 6 of the appointment notification
and the Agreement Bond executed by the petitioner on
21.01.2012.
This Court has carefully considered the aforesaid
documents. The appointment notification dated 14.12.2011
(Annexure-P/2) nowhere records that the appointment is purely
for a tenure of five years. On the contrary, it specifically states
that the petitioner was appointed through direct recruitment. The
relevant portion of the appointment notification reads as
follows:
“2. This appointment is by direct recruitment.
3. He will be on probation for a period of two
years from the date of joining against the post of Director
Extension Education. During the period of probation his
services are liable to be terminated for
indiscipline/unsatisfactory performance on one month’s notice.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
28/49
Similarly, the Agreement Bond dated 21.01.2012
(Annexure-P/4) merely obligates the petitioner to serve the
University for a minimum period of three years and to abide by
the provisions of the Act, Rules, Regulations and Statutes as
amended from time to time. The relevant clauses read as
follows:
“(i) That the FIRST PARTY shall serve the
University for a minimum period of three years faithfully and
sincerely with due diligence in accordance with the provisions
of the Rules, Regulations, Statutes and Act of the University and
the standing instructions issued by the competent authorities
from time to time
(ii) That during the period of three years from the
date of joining the University, the FIRST PARTY shall not seek
employment with any other agency, authority or organization
nor shall he/she submit any application for outside employment
during the period of the service agreement.
(iii) That the FIRST PARTY shall abide by the
Rules, Regulations, Statutes and the provisions of the University
Act, as amended from time to time and that these amendments
shall be binding on the FIRST PARTY.”
In the considered opinion of this Court, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
29/49
aforesaid stipulations cannot be construed as converting an
otherwise substantive appointment into a tenure appointment.
The clause requiring an employee to abide by future
amendments in service rules is a general service condition
intended to regulate service matters. Such a clause, by itself,
cannot be interpreted to authorise retrospective alteration of the
very nature of an appointment, unless the statute expressly
provides for such consequence.
It is well settled that unless a statute expressly or
by necessary implication provides for retrospective operation, it
is presumed to operate prospectively. This principle is
particularly applicable where the amendment affects vested
rights or materially alters existing service conditions. The Bihar
Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 were admittedly notified
on 27.02.2017 and published in the Official Gazette on
21.03.2017. Article 1.2 of the Statutes specifically provides that
the Statutes shall come into force from the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette. There is no provision in the
Statutes declaring that appointments already made before their
enforcement would automatically stand converted into tenure
appointments.
The respondents have relied upon Clause 13.2(c) of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
30/49
the Statutes, which prescribes that the posts of Directors and
Deans shall be filled through direct recruitment for a tenure of
five years. The relevant provision reads as follows:
“The post of Deans/Directors will filled up through
direct recruitment for a tenure of five years which may be
extended in exceptional cases on recommendation of the Vice-
Chancellor by the Board of Management till fresh appointment
is made on term whichever is earlier.”
A plain reading of Clause 13.2(c) shows that it
prescribes the mode of future appointments to the posts of
Directors and Deans. It does not contain any language
suggesting that appointments already made years before the
Statutes came into force shall retrospectively be treated as
tenure appointments. Had the legislature intended to disturb
existing appointments, it would have incorporated a specific
transitional provision or saving clause to that effect. The
absence of such a provision assumes significance. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of P. Mahendran Vs. State of
Karnataka (1990) 1 SCC 411 has observed herein:
“11…………………. If a candidate applies for a
post in response to advertisement issued by Public Service
Commission in accordance with recruitment Rules he acquires
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
31/49
right to be considered for selection in accordance with the then
existing Rules. This right cannot be affected by amendment of
any rule unless the amending rule is retrospective in nature. In
the instant case the Commission had acted in accordance with
the then existing rules and there is no dispute that the
appellants were eligible for appointment, their selection was not
in violation of the recruitment Rules. The Tribunal in our
opinion was in error in setting aside the select list prepared by
the Commission.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
The factual matrix also supports the petitioner's
case. The minutes of the first meeting of the Board of
Management held on 09.12.2010 (Annexure-P/3) clearly reveal
that until the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes were
framed, the Statutes of the erstwhile Rajendra Agricultural
University would govern the service conditions of the
employees. Admittedly, under the Rajendra Agricultural
University Statutes, the post of Director, Extension Education
was not a tenure post.
The conduct of the University after the petitioner's
appointment also assumes considerable importance. By Office
Order dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure-P/5), the University
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
32/49
acknowledged that the petitioner's lien on his previous post had
expired and permitted him to continue in the services of Bihar
Agricultural University. At no point did the University indicate
that his appointment was tenure based or liable to expire
automatically after five years. Likewise, Office Order dated
27.01.2017 (Annexure-P/6) revising the petitioner's pay
proceeds on the basis that he continued to hold the office of
Director, Extension Education. Nothing in the said order
suggests that the University itself regarded the petitioner's
appointment as a fixed-term appointment.
The most significant circumstance is the
communication issued by the University itself vide Letter No.
1622 dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure-P/7) addressed to the
Governor Secretariat. In the said communication, the University
categorically explained that the petitioner's appointment had
been made pursuant to Advertisement No. 12 of 2011 under the
then prevailing statutory framework and that Clause 13.2(c) of
the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 would not
govern his appointment. The relevant portion reads as follows:
“mijksDr rF;ksa ls Li"V gS fd o"kZ 2017 esa vf/klwfpr fcgkj
Ñf"k fo'ofo|ky; ifjfu;e esa fu;qfDr ds fufeRr fofgr p;u izfØ;k iwoZ ds
o"kksZa esa gqbZ fu;qfDr dks izHkkfor ugha dj ldsxkA ,rn~uq:i ls MkW- jfonsz dqekj
lksgkus dh lsok dh fujUrjrk funs'kd izlkj f'k{kk ds in ij cuh gqbZ gSA”
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
33/49
This communication is not merely an opinion of an
individual officer. It constitutes a contemporaneous official
explanation furnished by the University itself while dealing with
the very issue presently in dispute. Such contemporaneous
interpretation of statutory provisions by the authority
responsible for implementing them carries persuasive value.
A distinction has to be maintained between
regulation of service conditions and alteration of the character
of the appointment itself. While service rules relating to pay,
leave, disciplinary proceedings, pension and other incidents of
service may legitimately operate upon existing employees, the
conversion of a substantive appointment into a tenure
appointment resulting in curtailment of the tenure of office is a
matter of substantive right. Such a consequence cannot be
inferred merely from a general clause requiring compliance with
future amendments, particularly in the absence of express
statutory language. The Court also finds merit in the petitioner's
submission that the appointment notification, advertisement and
the statutory provisions existing in the year 2011 formed the
foundation of his appointment. Those conditions could not
subsequently be altered to his disadvantage by implication
alone.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
34/49
For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that
the petitioner's appointment to the post of Director, Extension
Education is governed by the statutory provisions and service
conditions existing on the date of his appointment. Clause
13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010,
which came into force only upon publication of the Statutes in
the Official Gazette in the year 2017, operates prospectively and
cannot be applied retrospectively so as to convert the petitioner's
substantive appointment made in the year 2011 into a tenure
appointment of five years.
Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is answered in favour of
the petitioner.
Issue No. 3
Whether the decision of the Board of
Management and the consequential Office Orders dated
19.09.2025 repatriating the petitioner to an alleged
equivalent post and authorising another officer to discharge
the duties of Director, Extension Education are legally valid,
particularly in light of the petitioner's claim that no
equivalent post exists, his lien had already expired, and no
opportunity of hearing was afforded to him?
Findings on Issue no. 3: Having held while
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
35/49
deciding Issue No. 2 that the petitioner's appointment to the post
of Director, Extension Education was not a tenure appointment
and that Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University
Statutes, 2010 could not be applied retrospectively, the legality
of the impugned decision of the Board of Management and the
consequential office orders now falls for consideration.
The impugned Office Order dated 19.09.2025 bearing Memo
No. 753 (Annexure-P/11) records that pursuant to the decision
taken by the Board of Management in its 38th Meeting, the
petitioner stood repatriated upon completion of his tenure and
was posted against an "equivalent post" at Mandan Bharti Krishi
College, Agwanpur, Saharsa. By another Office Order of the
same date bearing Memo No. 754 (Annexure-P/12), Dr. Sushil
Kumar Pathak, University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist, was
authorised to discharge the duties attached to the office of
Director, Extension Education along with its administrative and
financial powers.
The legality of the aforesaid action has to be
examined on the basis of the statutory provisions governing the
University and the factual circumstances borne out from the
record. The principal contention of the petitioner is that there
exists no equivalent post to that of Director, Extension
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
36/49
Education in any constituent college of the University. It has
been argued that the post of Director is a statutory office created
under the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010 and occupies
a distinct position in the administrative hierarchy of the
University.
This submission deserves acceptance. Section 18 of
the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010 enumerates the
officers of the University. A plain reading of the said provision
shows that after the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, the
Directors of the University find place in the statutory hierarchy,
followed by the Deans, Registrar, Comptroller and other
officers. The statutory position of the Director, therefore, is
distinct from the teaching positions available in the constituent
colleges of the University. The respondents have not placed any
statutory provision, Regulation or Schedule demonstrating that
the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist is legally
equivalent to the statutory office of Director, Extension
Education. The respondents have principally relied upon the fact
that both posts carry the same pay level and that the petitioner
has suffered no financial loss. However, equivalence in service
jurisprudence cannot be determined merely on the basis of
identical pay scales. Nature of duties, statutory status, powers,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
37/49
responsibilities, administrative control, channel of promotion
and place in the organisational hierarchy are equally relevant
considerations.
In the present case, the material placed on record
indicates that the office of Director, Extension Education carries
independent administrative as well as financial responsibilities.
This is also evident from Office Order dated 19.09.2025 bearing
Memo No. 754 whereby another officer was specifically
authorised to discharge the administrative and financial powers
attached to the office of Director, Extension Education.
If the office of Director, Extension Education was
truly equivalent to the post of University Professor-cum-Chief
Scientist, there would have been no necessity to separately
confer the statutory and administrative powers of the Director
upon another officer. The very issuance of Office Order No. 754
demonstrates that the office of Director carries powers and
responsibilities independent of the teaching post against which
the petitioner has been repatriated.
The respondents have also relied upon Clause 13 of
Advertisement No. 12 of 2011, which provides that the selected
candidate may be transferred to an equivalent post within the
jurisdiction of the University. The said clause cannot advance
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
38/49
the respondents' case. The power to transfer against an
equivalent post necessarily presupposes the existence of a
legally recognised equivalent post. Such a clause cannot
authorise the employer to treat two dissimilar statutory offices
as equivalent merely because they carry the same pay scale. In
the absence of any statutory material establishing such
equivalence, the impugned order cannot be sustained on that
basis alone.
Another significant aspect concerns the petitioner's
lien. The record discloses that by Office Order dated 31.07.2015
(Annexure-P/5), the University itself acknowledged that the
petitioner's lien against his earlier post had expired on
21.01.2014. The relevant portion of the said office order reads
as follows:
"MkW- vkj- ds- lksgkus] funs'kd izlkj f'k{kk] fcgkj Ñf"k
fo'ofo|ky;] lckSj ds in ij xzg.kkf/kdkj ds vk/kkj ij dk;Zjr FksA
xzg.kkf/kdkj dh vof/k fnukad% 21-01-2014 dks lekIr gks x;h ijUrq os jktsUnz
Ñf"k fo'ofo|ky;] iwlk dh lsok esa okil ugha x;sA
iz/kku lfpo] fcgkj ljdkj] Ñf"k foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k
4@lfpok Ñ-fo-&13@2011 ¼[k.M½&181@Ñ- iVuk fnukad 12-01-2015 Kkiakd
222 fnukad% 14-01-2015 }kjk ijLij vkesyu ij iz'uxr f'k{kdksa@oSKkfudksa dks
fo'ofo|ky; vkoafVr djrs gq, ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd tks
oSKkfud@'kS{kf.kd dehZ ftl Ñf"k fo'ofo|ky; esa dk;Z dj jgs gSa os mlh
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
39/49
fo'ofo|ky; dh lsok esa cus jgsaxsA"
The respondents have attempted to justify the
repatriation by contending that the petitioner has merely been
sent back to the post of University Professor-cum-Chief
Scientist, which he had earlier held.
This submission cannot be accepted. The concept
of repatriation ordinarily presupposes the existence of a
substantive post or lien to which the employee can legally
return. Once the respondents themselves recognised that the
petitioner's lien had ceased in the year 2014 and that he
thereafter continued in the services of Bihar Agricultural
University, there remained no legal foundation for repatriating
him after more than a decade on the assumption that he
continued to possess a right over his previous post. The
respondents have relied upon the notification issued by Rajendra
Agricultural University granting promotion to the petitioner as
University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist. However, that
notification by itself does not establish the continued existence
of a lien after the University itself had declared the lien to have
expired.
The Court also finds substance in the petitioner's
contention regarding violation of the principles of natural
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
40/49
justice. It is an admitted position that before issuance of Office
Orders dated 19.09.2025, no notice was issued to the petitioner
and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. The
respondents have argued that since the impugned action merely
amounted to repatriation under the terms of appointment, no
hearing was required. The submission is difficult to accept. The
impugned orders do not merely regulate the petitioner's place of
posting. They remove the petitioner from a statutory office
which he had been holding continuously since January, 2012,
deprive him of the administrative and financial powers attached
to that office and simultaneously authorise another officer to
discharge those functions.
An action having such serious civil consequences
could not have been taken without observing the minimum
requirements of fairness. Even where a statute is silent,
compliance with the principles of natural justice is ordinarily
required unless specifically excluded either expressly or by
necessary implication. No such exclusion has been brought to
the notice of this Court. The respondents have also not produced
any material to show that the petitioner was associated with the
decision-making process or was afforded an opportunity to
explain his case before the Board of Management arrived at its
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
41/49
conclusion.
For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the
considered view that the decision of the Board of Management
dated 18.09.2025, insofar as it directs repatriation of the
petitioner to an alleged equivalent post, and the consequential
Office Orders dated 19.09.2025 bearing Memo Nos. 753 and
754 cannot be sustained in law. The respondents have failed to
establish the existence of any legally equivalent post to that of
Director, Extension Education, have acted contrary to their own
earlier determination regarding expiry of the petitioner's lien,
and have passed the impugned orders without affording the
petitioner any opportunity of hearing despite the serious civil
consequences flowing therefrom.
Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is answered in favour of
the petitioner.
Issue No. 4
Whether the impugned action of the University
is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the Bihar
Agricultural University Act, 2010, the applicable Statutes
and the principles of natural justice, particularly in view of
the University's earlier stand regarding the prospective
operation of the 2017 Statutes and its alleged treatment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
42/49
similarly situated officers?
Findings on Issue No.4: This issue goes to the root
of the controversy as it concerns the legality of the decision-
making process adopted by the University and whether the
impugned action satisfies the constitutional requirements of
fairness, equality and non-arbitrariness. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the impugned Office Orders dated
19.09.2025 are the result of an arbitrary and discriminatory
exercise of power by the University and are liable to be quashed
as being contrary to the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural
University Act, 2010, the applicable Statutes and Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India.
It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as
Director, Extension Education pursuant to Advertisement No. 12
of 2011 through a regular process of direct recruitment after
recommendation of the duly constituted Selection Committee
and approval of the Board of Management. At the time of such
appointment, neither the applicable Statutes nor the
advertisement prescribed that the post was a tenure post. The
petitioner thereafter continuously discharged the duties of the
said office for more than thirteen years without any objection
from the University regarding the nature of his appointment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
43/49
It is further submitted that even after publication of
the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 in the Official
Gazette in the year 2017, the University itself consistently
proceeded on the footing that the newly introduced tenure
provisions would operate prospectively and would not affect
appointments already made. In this regard, reliance has been
placed upon the communication issued by the Director
(Administration), Bihar Agricultural University bearing Memo
No. 1622 dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure-P/7), addressed to the
Governor Secretariat, wherein the University itself categorically
recorded that the petitioner's appointment had been made
pursuant to Advertisement No. 12 of 2011 under the then
prevailing Statutes and, therefore, Clause 13.2(c) of the 2017
Statutes regarding five-year tenure was not applicable to him.
The learned counsel submits that the said
communication constitutes an official and conscious
interpretation adopted by the University itself regarding the
applicability of Clause 13.2(c). In absence of any subsequent
statutory amendment having retrospective effect, the University
could not arbitrarily depart from its own earlier interpretation
without assigning any cogent reason.
The petitioner further relies upon the proceedings
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
44/49
relating to Dr. Mirajul Haque, who was similarly appointed
before the publication of the 2017 Statutes. It is submitted that
although an initial office order dated 10.08.2023 sought to
repatriate Dr. Mirajul Haque by treating his appointment as
tenure based, the Board of Management, in its 36th Meeting
held on 08.08.2024, reconsidered the matter and resolved that
the tenure provisions introduced under Clause 13.2(c) would
operate only prospectively and would not apply retrospectively
to appointments made prior to publication of the Statutes.
According to the petitioner, this decision clearly
demonstrates that the University itself had accepted the
prospective operation of the 2017 Statutes. Therefore, adopting
an entirely contrary interpretation only in the case of the present
petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination without any rational
basis.
The respondents have attempted to explain this
apparent inconsistency by asserting in their Counter Affidavit
that Annexure-P/9 is fabricated and that the Board of
Management had in fact approved the repatriation of Dr. Mirajul
Haque. They have relied upon Annexure-R/K in support of such
contention. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that irrespective of the rival claims regarding the correctness of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
45/49
Annexure-P/9, the official communication issued by the
University itself vide Memo No.1622 dated 05.03.2021
(Annexure-P/7) unequivocally records that the petitioner's
appointment would continue to be governed by the legal regime
existing at the time of his appointment. The respondents have
merely stated that the said communication was "not in
consonance" with the Statutes, but no statutory provision has
been pointed out authorising the University to retrospectively
alter the service conditions of an employee already appointed.
The learned counsel further submits that the decision impugned
in the present proceedings also suffers from procedural
arbitrariness. The petitioner was never issued any notice before
altering his service conditions. No show cause notice was
served, no explanation was called for and no opportunity of
personal hearing was granted before directing his reversion from
the office of Director, Extension Education.
The respondents have sought to justify the absence
of hearing by contending that repatriation in terms of the
Statutes did not require observance of the principles of natural
justice.
The petitioner disputes the said submission by
contending that the impugned action was not a routine
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
46/49
administrative transfer but involved civil consequences. The
petitioner had continuously held the office of Director,
Extension Education for over thirteen years, his lien over his
previous post had admittedly expired, and the impugned
decision substantially altered his service position and status. In
such circumstances, compliance with the principles of natural
justice became an indispensable requirement.
The learned counsel also submits that the impugned
decision appears to have been taken without complete
consideration of all relevant materials. Respondent No.1,
namely the State Government, has specifically stated in its
Counter Affidavit that the Agriculture Department had not
received the agenda papers of the 37th and 38th Meetings of the
Board of Management within the prescribed period. It has
further been stated that the Department had requested
postponement of the meeting and that no representative of the
Agriculture Department participated in the 38th Meeting.
Reference has been made to Letter No.1298 dated 01.09.2025,
Letter No.4248 dated 15.09.2025, Letter No.4527 dated
09.10.2025 and Letter No.86 dated 09.01.2025, copies whereof
have been annexed by Respondent No.1. It is therefore
submitted that even the procedure followed by the Board of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
47/49
Management before taking the impugned decision was itself
questioned by the Agriculture Department.
The learned counsel therefore submits that the
impugned action cannot be sustained merely because it was
approved by the Board of Management. Every administrative
decision of the Board must satisfy the requirements of legality,
fairness, reasonableness and equality. A decision which departs
from the University's own earlier interpretation without rational
justification, treats similarly situated officers differently, ignores
relevant materials and adversely affects an employee without
affording an opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained in law.
The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the Board of
Management is the highest statutory authority under the Bihar
Agricultural University Act, 2010 and was fully competent to
take the impugned decision after obtaining legal opinion. It is
submitted that the decision was taken uniformly to implement
Clause 13.2(c) of the Statutes and to bring the University in
conformity with the ICAR Model Act and UGC guidelines.
According to the respondents, no discrimination has been
practised against the petitioner, his pay and service benefits
remain fully protected and he has merely been repatriated to the
equivalent post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
48/49
The respondents further deny that the petitioner was entitled to
any prior hearing, contending that the impugned order merely
implements the tenure provisions applicable to the post and does
not amount to any punitive action.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is
satisfied that the impugned action of the University is arbitrary,
discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of the Bihar
Agricultural University Act, 2010, the applicable Statutes and
the principles of natural justice. The respondents have failed to
justify the inconsistent application of the statutory provisions or
the departure from their own earlier stand.
Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
23. In view of the findings recorded on the issues
framed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the impugned decision of the Board of Management treating the
petitioner's appointment as a tenure appointment by applying
Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes,
2010 to an appointment made in the year 2011 cannot be
sustained in law. The action of the respondent University in
issuing Office Order dated 19.09.2025 bearing Memo No. 753,
whereby the petitioner was repatriated to an alleged equivalent
Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
49/49
post, and the consequential Office Order dated 19.09.2025
bearing Memo No. 754 authorising another officer to discharge
the duties of Director, Extension Education, is held to be
arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to the Bihar Agricultural
University Act, 2010 and the applicable Statutes, and violative
of the principles of natural justice.
24. Accordingly, both the aforesaid office orders
are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the
petitioner to the post of Director, Extension Education with all
consequential service benefits and continuity of service within a
period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this judgment.
25. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kundan/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 23.06.2026
Uploading Date 01.07.2026
Transmission Date NIL
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.