Patna High Court
Arvind Kumar ChaudharyversusThe Additional Chief Secretary
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court set aside the impugned Office Order and remanded the matter to the Board for a fresh decision after a hearing.
Summary
The petitioner, Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, filed a writ petition seeking quash of an Office Order dated 15‑Oct‑2019 that rejected his promotion to Headmaster and directed recovery of salary on the ground that his appointment was temporary. He argued that earlier orders of this Court in CWJC No. 15594 of 2013 had directed the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board to consider his eligibility, which it had approved in earlier Board memos. The respondents contended that the Board had not taken into account material facts and therefore the order should stand. The Court found a material deviation in the Board’s consideration, noting that the Secretary’s affidavit recognized the petitioner’s eligibility for the post, which the impugned order ignored. Consequently, the Court set aside the 15‑Oct‑2019 order and remanded the matter to the Board to decide afresh after giving the petitioner a hearing and a four‑week period to file his representation. The application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Office Order dated 15‑Oct‑2019 rejecting the petitioner’s promotion and directing salary recovery is valid in view of the earlier Court direction in CWJC No. 15594 of 2013.
- Whether the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board failed to consider material facts and the petitioner’s eligibility for promotion to Headmaster.
- Whether the impugned order should be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
Subjects
- promotion
- temporary appointment
- salary recovery
- quashing order
- writ jurisdiction
- Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board
- due process
- education
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25688 of 2019
======================================================
Arvind Kumar Chaudhary Son of Sukhdev Chaudhary Resident of Maranchi
Ward No.06, Maranchi, P.S.- District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Additional Chief Secretary Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Special Director, (Secondary Education), (Sanskrit and Madarsa),
Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Samastipur.
4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Samastipur.
5. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna.
6. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna.
7. Shri Mritunjay Prasad Chaudhary Son of Brahamdev Chaudhary Resident of
Ward No.11, Gonuchak, Fateha, P.S.- Bachwara, District- Begusarai, the
Secretary, Managing Committee of Bharti Sanskrit High School, Basti,
Samastipur.
8. Sanjeev Kumar Jha Son of Late Bhola Kant Jha resident of Village-
Kalyanpur Basti, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar
Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jai Prabhat Kishore, AC to SC-13
Mr. Md. Faiz Ahmad
Mr. Suresh Kumar Ishwar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
8 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant writ application has been filed for
quashing of the Office Order dated 15.10.2019, as contained in
Memo No. 3232 dated 15.10.2019, whereby, the case of the
petitioner for promotion has been rejected and the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.25688 of 2019(8) dt.10-02-2026
2/5
Education Officer, Samastipur directed to recover the salary
paid to the petitioner on the ground that his appointment was
only temporary, and could have continued for three months after
approval of appointment. Further prayer has been made for
staying the operation of the aforesaid order during the pendency
of the writ application, and as a consequential relief, the
petitioner has also prayed for a direction to promote him to the
post of Headmaster of Bharti Sanskrit High School, Basti.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWJC
No. 15594 of 2013 seeking payment of salary from the funds
released by the State Government by way of grant to Sanskrit
schools. The said writ application was heard along with other
writ petitions filed by similarly situated persons. After hearing
the parties and considering the stand taken, an order was passed
on 11.03.2015. The relevant portion of the said order is
extracted hereinbelow:
“...15. Let it be noted kept in mind that
this Court had passed another order on 28.03.2014
in the batch of writ applications restraining the
Chairman/ Secretary to the Board to give any sort
of recognition to any teaching employee of the
recognized Sanskrit schools till further orders of
this Court and therefore if the Secretary to the
Board had found it necessary to approve the
promotion of Arvind Kumar Chaudhary on the post
Patna High Court CWJC No.25688 of 2019(8) dt.10-02-2026
3/5
of Headmaster, he had to approach this Court
seeking specific approval and permission instead
of issuing an order.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to
Annexure-P/1, submits that the appointment of the petitioner on
the post of Acharya Assistant Teacher against a vacant
sanctioned post was duly approved by the Board vide Office
Order as contained in Memo No. 787 dated 18.05.1990. It is
further submitted that the Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit
Shiksha Board had filed an affidavit in CWJC No. 15594 of
2013, wherein it was candidly stated that although the petitioner,
possessing Acharya qualification, was appointed by the
Managing Committee of the school in the year 1989, his
appointment was duly approved by the Board. As per the
relevant Rules, a teacher possessing Acharya qualification is
eligible to be appointed as Headmaster or In-charge Headmaster
in Sanskrit High Schools. Accordingly, considering his seniority
and qualification, the petitioner was posted as In-charge
Headmaster of the school, which decision of the Managing
Committee was approved by the Board vide Memo No. 1936
dated 02.07.2010.
5. However, from perusal of the impugned order as
contained in Memo No. 3232 dated 15.10.2019, which is stated
Patna High Court CWJC No.25688 of 2019(8) dt.10-02-2026
4/5
to have been passed pursuant to the order of this Court in CWJC
No. 15594 of 2013, it appears that these material facts, which
were placed before this Court through a counter affidavit sworn
by the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, in the
said case, have not been considered. Thus, the order impugned
does not reflect proper consideration of the issues for which a
categorical direction had been issued by the coordinate Bench in
the earlier round of litigation.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the Board, the Headmaster of the school and the State submits
that since the material considerations directed to be examined
by the Board, while adjudicating the claim of the petitioner,
have apparently not been taken into account, the authorities may
be directed to take an appropriate decision in accordance with
law.
7. Considering the submissions advanced by the
parties, this Court is of the view that there has been material
deviation in consideration and adjudication of claim of the
petitioner, which would be evident from the fact that the stand
taken by the Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board
recognizing the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment as
In-charge Headmaster, which was already approved by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.25688 of 2019(8) dt.10-02-2026
5/5
Board, has not been taken into consideration, including other
material facts raised in the petition, while passing the impugned
order. As such, in absence of such consideration, this Court is
left with no other option but to set aside the order dated
15.10.2019 as contained in Memo No. 3232 and remand the
matter to the authorities of the Board to take a final decision
after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
permitting him to place all relevant documents in support of his
claim.
8. It is expected that the entire exercise shall be
completed by the Board within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of the representation, which the petitioner
shall file along with all supporting documents, including a copy
of this order, within a period of four weeks from today.
9. In the result, the instant application stands disposed
of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U
Checking your session…