Patna High Court
Rajeev KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the qualifications of petitioners 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are valid and must be recognized, while a fresh decision is to be taken regarding petitioner 3.
Summary
The petitioners, who were appointed as Exclusive Teachers after clearing the Bihar School Examination Board exam, challenged the refusal of the education authorities to recognize their graduation and post‑graduation degrees obtained from Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu. They contended that the university was recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) during the period they studied, and that similar candidates had been granted benefits, alleging discrimination. The respondents argued that the degrees were earned through a distance mode not recognized by the UGC, and therefore could not be accepted. The Court examined the UGC recognition letters and found that the university had institutional and programme‑wise recognition for the relevant years, and that the petitioners’ subjects fell within the recognised programmes. Consequently, the Court directed that the qualifications of petitioners 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 be treated as valid and that their seniority be counted from their merit positions, while ordering a fresh decision on petitioner 3’s case. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether graduation and post‑graduation degrees obtained from Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation via distance education are recognised by the UGC for the period of study.
- Whether the refusal to accept such qualifications violates the petitioners' right to equality and entitlement to promotion and seniority.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to seniority credit from the date of their merit position despite the initial denial of their qualifications.
Subjects
- UGC recognition
- distance education
- degree validation
- exclusive teacher appointment
- seniority
- equality
- discrimination
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3228 of 2025
======================================================
1. Rajeev Kumar S/o- Ram Kawal Chaudhary, R/o Moh- Gaurakshini, Road
No. 2B, P.S.- Sasaram, Dist- Rohtas.
2. Devendra Tiwary, S/o- Jayendra Tripathi, R/o Vill- Kusadhar, P.S.- Baghaila,
Dist- Rohtas.
3. Vijay Kumar Pandey, S/o- Kishori Prasad, R/o Moh- Basawan Path, Station
Road, Dalmianagar, P.S.- Dalmianagar, Dis- Rohtas.
4. Sudhir Kumar Rai, S/o- Kameshwar Rai, R/o Moh- Alamganj, P.S.-
Sasaram, Dist.- Rohtas.
5. Rina Kumari, W/o- Manoj Kumar Guput, R/o Vill- Bishanpura, P.S.- Akorhi
Gola, Dist- Rohtas.
6. Vibha Yadav, W/o- Saroj Kumar Singh, R/o Vill- Bhagatganj, P.S.- Dinara,
Dist- Rohtas.
7. Amaresh Kumar Singh, S/o- Sadabal Chaudhary, R/o Vill- Varmadih, P.S.-
Karakat (Gorari), Dist- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Rohtas.
4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Rohtas.
5. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
6. Anwar Khan, S/o- not known, Block Teacher, UMS, Ramudih, P.S.- Rajpur,
Dist- Rohtas.
7. Sunita Devi, W/o- not known, Block Teacher, UMS, Rajpur, P.S.- Rajpur,
Dist- Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate
For the BSEB : Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Rai, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Zeeshan Kalim, AC to SC (20)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 05-02-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties.
2. The petitioners who have been working as block
Teachers as well as Middle School Teachers, on being found
Patna High Court CWJC No.3228 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
2/5
eligible, have applied for the post of Exclusive Teacher and
accordingly, participated in the examination conducted by the
Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. The petitioners having
been declared successful for the post of Exclusive Teacher, they
have been allowed to participate in the counseling and during the
pendency of the writ petition, all the petitioners have been
declared Exclusive Teachers.
3. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is only confined
to the fact that despite having been declared as Exclusive Teacher
and allowed to discharge their duty as the same, the respondents
authorities have not accepted their qualification of Graduation as
well as Post-Graduation, acquired from Vinayaka Mission
Research Foundation, Salem, Tamilnadu.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that
the University in question is duly recognized by the University
Grants Commission from 2007 till 2013-14, during the period in
which the petitioners have completed the Graduation and Post-
Graduation. Nonetheless, the petitioners have been denied the
benefit of the aforenoted qualification and thus serious
impediment is being caused to the petitioners to get further
promotion in absence of recognition of their qualification
acquired from the University in question. It is further contended
that other persons who have been also qualified as an Exclusive
Patna High Court CWJC No.3228 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
3/5
Teachers and having also acquired qualification of
Graduation/Post-Graduation from the same institution,
surprisingly, they have been given all the benefits, by treating
their qualification to be recognized. But in case of petitioners,
discrimination has been caused.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent no. 4, referring to the averments made therein, it is
submitted that during the course of verification of the documents,
it was found that the petitioners have passed Graduation and
Post-Graduation from Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation,
Salem, Tamilnadu, through distance course which is not
recognized by the U.G.C. Therefore, the respondent authorities
denied to conduct the counseling. However, during the pendency
of the writ petition, they have been allowed to participate in
counseling and now have been appointed as Exclusive Teacher;
since their certificates obtained from the said University is found
to be not valid therefore, no benefits of such qualifications have
been extended to the petitioners. The respondents authorities
have also brought on record, the list of the Institutions which
have given recognition by the UGC and the name of the said
Institutions falls at serial no. 174.
6. Bare perusal of the said letter as also the list of the
Institution there is no indubity that the Universtity namely
Patna High Court CWJC No.3228 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
4/5
Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation, Salem, Tamilnadu is
treated to be deemed University and it has got institutional
recognition for the period 2007 till 2012. Further, programme
wise recognition has also been granted from 2011-2012 to 2013-
2014. The petitioners before this Court have admittedly pursued
and completed their Graduation and Post-Graduation in between
session of 2011-12 to 2013-14, except petitioner no. 3, who has
passed his M.A. (History) in the year 2009.
7. Having gone through the aforenoted letter which is
brought by the State-respondent, there is no difficulty to
comprehend that so far as the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are
concerned they have valid qualification of Graduation/Post-
Graduation as they have passed their examination of
Graduation/Post-Graduation within the period in which the
University was duly recognized and the subject through which
they have passed in examination finds place in the said letter as
recognized programme. Accordingly, this Court direct to the
concerned authorities to consider the qualification of the
petitioner nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, obtained from the University in
question as valid degree. So far as the petitioner no. 3 is
concerned, since, he has passed his examination in the year 2009,
though even for the said period, the University has institutional
recognition. Hence, a fresh decision is required to be taken by
Patna High Court CWJC No.3228 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
5/5
the District Programme Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.
8. It is expected that the decision with respect to
petitioner no. 3 must be taken, preferably, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt production of the copy of
this order.
9. It is made clear that since because of no fault of the
petitioners they have been belatedly allowed to appear in
counseling by treating their certificate as doubtful, hence, for that
the petitioners especially petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4,5 and 6 could not
be made to suffer; in the opinion of this Court their seniority
shall be counted with effect from their respective merit position.
For resolving such dispute the District Programme Officer,
Rohtas at Sasaram, shall also take decision with respect to the
seniority of the petitioners with the person who have been
allowed to appear in the counseling.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
(Harish Kumar, J)
khushbu/-
U
Checking your session…