Patna High Court
Shubhankar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The petition was not entertained; the petitioner was directed to file a representation before the respondent, and the writ petition was disposed.
Summary
Shubhankar Kumar filed a writ petition challenging the Bihar government's instruction for the Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test (STET) 2024, alleging that the reservation policy applied to qualifying marks is not permitted by law and that the test is not a competitive examination. He sought quashing of the instruction, issuance of fresh guidelines without reservation implications, a mandamus declaring the instruction unconstitutional, and other appropriate reliefs. The State of Bihar and the Bihar School Examination Board contended that the reservation policy falls within the government's domain and that the petition was misconceived. The Court observed that the petitioner had not exhausted administrative remedies and directed him to file a detailed representation before the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department within two weeks. The Court reserved the right to consider the representation thereafter and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the reservation policy applied to qualifying marks in the STET 2024 is permissible under law
- Whether the STET qualifies as a competitive examination for the purpose of reservation
- Whether the instruction issued under Advertisement no.442/2023 is unconstitutional and illegal
- Whether the High Court can entertain the writ petition at this stage
Subjects
- reservation policy
- teacher eligibility test
- writ jurisdiction
- administrative law
- education
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2167 of 2026
======================================================
Shubhankar Kumar son of Krishna Mohan Ray, resident of Village- Gangora
Tola, Ward no.04, P.O.- Bihra,, P.S. Bihra District- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna -
800015.
2. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chairman Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
5. The Examination Controller (Misc.) Bihar School Examination Board,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raja Ram Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to AG
For the BSEB : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gyan Prakash, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court for the following reliefs:-
“(i) To quash the instruction for Examination of
STET (in short Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test)
2024 issued under Advertise no.442/2023 dated
13-12-2023 as the reservation policy of the
Government has been implemented for qualifying
marks in the Teachers Eligibility Test not
permitted under law.
(ii) To issue direction upon the Respondents to
issue Fresh instructions and Guidelines for STET
Patna High Court CWJC No.2167 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
without implication of Reservation policy in
qualifying marks as the test is for profession of
teaching and the test is not a competitive
examination.
(iii) To issue a writ of Mandamus declaring all the
activity under the instruction contained in
Advertisement no.442/2023 unconstitutional and
illegal.
(iv) To issue other proper writ/order/direction/orders to
the ends of justice.”
3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the Government of Bihar is not implementing the
reservation policy in the correct perspective, thereby causing
serious prejudice to the rights and entitlements of the petitioner.
4. The learned Advocate for the State and the Bihar
School Examination Board submitted that the implementation of
the reservation policy falls within the domain of the State
Government, and the present writ petition appears to be
misconceived.
5. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the
petitioner submits that, for redressal of his grievance, the
petitioner has already approached before the authorities
concerned, but they have not taken any decision.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced and
Patna High Court CWJC No.2167 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
taking note of the nature of the grievance, this Court does not
find any reason or occasion to entertain the present petition at
this stage. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to file a
detailed representation before respondent no.2, preferably
within a period of two weeks from today.
7. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall
be looked into by the concerned respondent, who shall pass a
reasoned and speaking order considering the grievance of the
petitioner, within a further period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of the representation.
8. The writ petition stands disposed off.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U
Checking your session…