Patna High Court

Manik Chand RamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 12 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: AJIT KUMAR

Holding

The termination of the petitioner’s appointment was unlawful, and he is entitled to salary arrears and parity of benefits if his case is found analogous to similarly situated teachers.

Summary

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher appointed in 2012 under the Bihar Staff Selection Commission and Supreme Court‑mandated procedures, was abruptly terminated by a District Education Officer’s memo despite a Supreme Court order protecting such appointments. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement, payment of salary arrears from February 2012 to February 2024, and parity of benefits with similarly situated teachers who had been granted such relief in earlier judgments. The court examined prior decisions (LPA Nos. 1254/2016, 1309/2017, 1310/2017, 1491/2014, CWJC No. 20429/2019) and held that the termination was unlawful and that the petitioner is entitled to the same salary and benefits if his case is found analogous to those teachers. The court directed the District Education Officer to compare the petitioner’s case with the similarly situated teachers and, if found similar, to grant the salary and benefits within eight weeks. The writ petition was consequently disposed of with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the termination of the petitioner’s appointment, made under Supreme Court‑directed selection, is legally valid.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary arrears for the period he was out of service.
Whether the petitioner should receive subsequent benefits on par with similarly situated teachers as per earlier judgments.
Whether the respondents are bound to comply with the Supreme Court and High Court directions regarding the 34,540 teacher vacancies.

Subjects

appointment
reinstatement
salary arrears
teachers
writ of mandamus
Supreme Court direction
public service
parity of benefits
illegal termination

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.318 of 2026
======================================================
Manik Chand Ram S/o Sukhari Ram, Resident of Takiya, Bhavanipur,
Badhaiyabagh, P.S. Sasaram, Dist- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, H.R.D., Govt. of Bihar.
3. The Director (Primary Education) H.R.D., Govt. of Bihar.
4. The District Magistrate, Kaimur.
5. The District Education Officer, Kaimur.
6. The District Program Officer, (Establishment), Dist Kaimur.
7. The Block Education Officer, Bhagwanpur, Dist Kaimur.
8. The Headmaster Upgraded Middle School Pihara, Block Bhagwanpur, Dist
Kaimur.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bijay Shankar Choubey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (07)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER

2 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the

following relief:-

“1. That the present writ application is being preferred for
i. For issuance of direction, order or writ in the
nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions,
commanding the respondents to pay arrear of salary
from the month of February 2012 to February 2024,
periods the respondent authority has restrained to the
petitioner to perform his duty on the post of Assistant
Teacher as the petitioner was appointed wide order
Patna High Court CWJC No.318 of 2026(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/7

dated 16.02.2012 on the post of Regular Assistant
Teacher (Trained) 34540 Grade, after followed due
procedure and selection and also on the
recommendations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pay Scale
of Rs. 4200/- Band P-2 Grade and latter on wrongly
terminated to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.5.2012
and after long litigation the respondent has reinstated
to the petitioner vide letter dated 02.02.2024.
ii. To issue a direction, order, or writ upon the
respondents to grant all subsequent benefit to the
petitioner who has been reinstated the service of
petitioner from the date of her termination on the post
of Assistant Teacher (Trained)34540 grade, as
similarly situated persons have already been granted
the same benefit in light of judgment rendered in L.P.A.
No. 1254 of 2016, and analogous matter, L.P.A. No.
1309 of 2017 and L.P.A No. 1310 of 2017.
iii. and for the other necessary relief/reliefs to
the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case as
enumerated and stated hereinafter.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

appointment of the petitioner was made pursuant to the

advertisement issued by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission

and after assessing his eligibility and qualification for the post,

the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Trained) as

against 34,540 vacant posts is said to have been made and in

compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed

in Contempt Petition No. 297 of 2007 and a Committee

constituted by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyaya for
Patna High Court CWJC No.318 of 2026(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/7

scrutinizing the candidature of the similarly situated persons

including the petitioner, a merit list was prepared and, on

approval being made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the name of

the petitioner having figured in the merit list as per reservation

roaster and the petitioner having been found to be qualified, his

appointment was directed by issuing appointment letter and

accordingly, joined in Up-graded middle school, Bihara, Block

Bhagwanpur in Kaimur district.

4. While the petitioner was continuing to discharge his

duty with full devotion and satisfaction, to his utter surprise, the

District Education Officer vide Memo No. 1725 dated

26.05.2012 cancelled his appointment by interfering with the

order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein the directions

were issued to the authority not to disturb their appointment and

still, for no obvious reasons, the appointment of the petitioner

along with the others were cancelled, which issues have been

dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as the

Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 1254 of 2016 and other

analogous matters, LPA No. 1309 of 2017 and LPA No. 1310 of

2017 wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide

common judgment dated 28.08.2023 passed in LPA No. 1254 of

2016 and another analogous cases passed following order,
Patna High Court CWJC No.318 of 2026(2) dt.12-01-2026
4/7

which is extracted herein below:-

----- “14. We are of the opinion that the said directions
cannot be sustained especially looking at the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 18.07.2013, which
categorically declared that those persons who are appointed
in the 34540 vacancies shall not be disturbed. We only notice
that the petitioners herein were not parties in the said batch of
writ petitions. Hence they cannot be denied of the benefit of
the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was passed on
18.07.2013, which is binding on the State of Bihar.
15. We further notice the judgment of a Division Bench
of this Court produced as Annexure B, along with the counter
affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 in CWJC No. 6753 of 2013.
The Division Bench after noticing the order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions claiming selection
to the balance vacancies other than those filled up from 34540
posts. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also noticed in
the order dated 18.07.2013 that 2413 posts out of the 34540
posts were still left to be filled up. The direction by the
Division Bench in LPA No. 1491 of 2014 and the analogous
cases were to the effect that the Committee shall consider the
case of the petitioners therein, in accordance with the
procedure that was followed in the selection of 32127
teachers on the previous occasion. We are not concerned with
the directions in LPA No. 1491 of 2014 which are with respect
to the persons who were denied appointment as per the
selection earlier conducted by the State of Bihar on the
supervision of Justice Chattopadhyay.
16. We are of the definite opinion that in the present
case where all the party-respondents were appointed as per
the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, under the
supervision of Justice Chattopadhyay, cannot be terminated
Patna High Court CWJC No.318 of 2026(2) dt.12-01-2026
5/7

on grounds of qualifications not having been properly
verified; unless otherwise permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The party respondents were appointed after their
eligibility being settled by Justice Chattopadhyay, appointed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to oversee the selection and
appointment of teachers to the vacant posts, identified as
available, as per the undertaking made by the State before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Though the verification of
credentials and qualifications of the candidates were directed
to be done, there could be no such verification at this late
stage. As noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment the State ought to have been more vigilant when the
appointments were carried out.
17. We hence find no merit in the appeals filed by the
State and dismiss the same.”
5. It has next been submitted that in compliance of the

directions of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 25.09.2023 passed in

CWJC No. 20429 of 2019 as well as the observation/direction

of Division Bench rendered in LPA No. 1254 of 2016, the

petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 02.02.2024

contained in Memo No. 240 but, the salary for the period during

which the petitioner remained out of service has not been paid,

despite there being categorical directions issued in this regard.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this

Court to Annexure P/3, which is passed in the case of Munilal

Ram Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 20429 of 2019)

wherein it has been directed that if the similarly situated persons
Patna High Court CWJC No.318 of 2026(2) dt.12-01-2026
6/7

have been allowed benefits of salary for the period, the person

similar to this petitioner had also remained out of service,

should also be treated at par with them and, accordingly, the

petitioner is also entitled to payment of salary for the period he

remained out of service.

7. Keeping in row the judgment rendered on the

subject in issue, this Court directs the authorities to consider the

case of the petitioner at par with those similarly situated persons

in whose favour the salary for the period they remained out of

service have been allowed vide office order as contained in

Memo No. 214 dated 10.01.2024.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the State submits

that the respondents may be directed to examine the similarity

before adjudicating and granting benefits to the petitioner at par

with those whose names find place in the office order dated

10.01.2024.

9. Considering the submissions so made by the

learned counsel for the State, this Court finds it appropriate to

direct the District Education Officer, Kaimur to examine the

case of this petitioner to that of the similarly situated teachers, in

whose favour the benefits of salary has been allowed vide

Annexure-5 dated 10.01.2024 and, in case, on adjudication it is
Patna High Court CWJC No.318 of 2026(2) dt.12-01-2026
7/7

found that the case of the petitioner is similar to those in whose

favour salaries have been allowed, the similar benefits shall also

be extended to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks

from the date of such representation.

10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the

writ petition stands disposed of.

(Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…