Patna High Court
Asnand Prakash AgarwalversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that the order rejecting the petitioner's representation was not illegal and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Anand Prakash Agarwal, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7 April 2012 that rejected his representation for appointment as English Instructor at the Principal Industrial Training Institute, Banka, and also sought a writ of mandamus directing his appointment. He had been selected through a 2009 advertisement and appointed on a contractual basis, but was absent for a period due to family reasons despite submitting medical documents. The petitioner filed a prior writ (CWJC No.1453 of 2012) which directed the institute to consider his representation, but the subsequent order rejected it on the ground that his unauthorized absence disqualified him from contract extension. The High Court examined whether the rejection was illegal or contrary to principles of natural justice. Finding no illegality in the authority’s application of the contract‑extension rules, the Court dismissed the petition, refusing to grant either certiorari or mandamus.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's representation is illegal and liable to be set aside by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing his appointment as English Instructor.
- Whether the authority correctly applied the contractual tenure extension provisions in rejecting the representation.
Subjects
- writ of certiorari
- writ of mandamus
- appointment
- contractual employment
- industrial training institute
- representation
- administrative law
- natural justice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1834 of 2017
======================================================
Anand Prakash Agarwal S/o- Prof. Dr. Dwarka Das Agarwal, Resident of-
Lalbag Colony, Tilkamanjhi, P.O. and P.S.- Tilkamanjhi, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Labour Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, Labour Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, Labour
Resources Department, Government of Bihar.
4. The Principal Institute of Industrial Training, Gandhi Chowk, Banka
presently at Village- Telia, P.O. Telia, P.S. Banka, District Banka.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, G.P.-26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
7 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief(s):
“I. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction, quashing the order dated 07.04.2012,
Annexure-7 passed by Principal, Industrial Training
Institute, Banka passed in Memo No. 62/Banka
whereby and where under the representation of the
petitioner for appointment of English Instructor in the
said institute has been rejected by Respondent
Principal on wrong and fictitious ground.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1834 of 2017(7) dt.19-01-2026
2/4
II. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction commanding the respondent Principal to
appoint the petitioner on the said post and accept the
joining of the petitioner.
III. For any other reliefs which the
petitioner may be found entitled.”
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that pursuant to the respondents coming out with an
advertisement on 14.8.2009 for appointment of Instructors on
contractual basis, the petitioner along with the other similarly
situated persons applied and was selected. The office order
dated 18.6.2010 is brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ
application.
4. It further transpires that subsequently the petitioner
who was working on the post of English Instructor in the
Industrial Training Institute at Banka was absent for certain days
for family reasons. Inspite of the petitioner having submitted an
application along with medical documents, no final decision
was being taken and he was being prevented from discharging
his duties. This led to the petitioner filing CWJC no.1453 of
2012 in this Court.
5. CWJC no.1453 of 2012 was disposed of by order
dated 14.2.2012 directing the Principal, Industrial Training
Institute at Banka to consider the representation filed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1834 of 2017(7) dt.19-01-2026
3/4
petitioner and to dispose of the same by a reasoned and
speaking order within the time fixed. As such, the petitioner
filed a representation which came to be rejected by order no. 62
dated 7.4.2012 (Annexure-7), impugned herein.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the respondents not having considered the representation in
the proper perspective, the order impugned is not sustainable
and the same be set aside.
7. On perusal of the order dated 7.4.2012, it transpires
that the authority concerned while considering the
representation filed by the petitioner has taken note of the fact
that as per order no.1423 dated 30.5.2011, the tenure of the
persons working on contract basis was to be extended by a
further period of one year or till regular appointment was made,
whichever is earlier. This would have been for the period
1.6.2011 to 31.5.2012. The extension of service on contract
basis was not to take place in case of those persons who did not
give their joining ie were absent even after their appointment,
had resigned or were not working inspite of having joined the
service on contract basis. As the petitioner was not working
from 13.7.2010 to 30.5.2011 and was unauthorisedy absent
without any information, so far as the extension of period of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1834 of 2017(7) dt.19-01-2026
4/4
contract is concerned, the same was not applicable so far as the
petitioner is concerned. The respondents as such found no merit
in the representation filed by the petitioner and rejected the
same.
8. Having perused the contents of the petition
specially the order impugned dated 7.4.2012, this Court finds no
illegality in the said order. The petitioner has not made out a
case for interference by this Court in the order impugned.
9. The application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U
Checking your session…