Patna High Court
Lalan Kumar BaudhversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
A public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters; the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, an RTI activist, filed a public interest litigation in the Patna High Court seeking the removal of the Vice‑Chancellor of Veer Kunwar Singh University and an inquiry into alleged financial irregularities, as well as setting aside an extension of the Vice‑Chancellor’s tenure. The petitioner alleged that the Vice‑Chancellor’s term had expired and that the Chancellor had illegally extended it, and further claimed misuse of university funds. The Court observed that the petition was essentially a challenge to the service of a public officer, for which the appropriate remedy is a writ of quo warranto, not a PIL. It noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that service matters cannot be entertained through public interest litigation, citing several precedents. The Court also held that the petitioner was not without alternative remedies to address the alleged financial misconduct. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of maintainability.
Issues considered
- Whether a public interest litigation can be entertained to challenge the service and tenure extension of a university Vice‑Chancellor.
- Whether the appropriate remedy for challenging the eligibility of a public officer is a writ of quo warranto.
- Whether allegations of financial irregularities in a university can be pursued through a PIL.
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- service matters
- quo warranto
- university administration
- financial irregularities
- writ petition
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4101 of 2026
======================================================
Lalan Kumar Baudh So Ram Bilash Ram, R/o village- Dudhaila, P.O. and
P.S- Jamhor, Dist.- Aurangabad, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Higher
Education Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary to H.E. the Chancellor, Governor’s Secretariat,
Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.
3. The Vice Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Bhojpur at Ara.
4. The Pro Vice Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Bhojpur at Ara.
5. The Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University. Bhojpur at Ara.
6. The Finance Officer, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Bhojpur at Ara
7. The Accountant General, Beer Chand Patel Marg. Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Archana Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Swarna Roy, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, AC to AG
For the Res. Nos. 3-6 : Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Adv.
For the Accountant General : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Adv.
For the Chancellor : Mr. R K Giri, Adv.
Mr. Amish Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)
3 01-05-2026 Learned Counsel for the respective parties are present.
2. The petitioner, claiming himself as R.T.I. activist
has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the writ
petition by way of public interest litigation seeking following
reliefs:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.4101 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
2/4
“I) For issuance of proper
writ and direction/ order in public
interest litigaton / (PIL) to initiate
illegal action against the Vice
Chancellor of Veer Kunwar Singh
University and on other respondents
for defalcation of money in the
university and its recognized colleges
including P.M.G., Ara and G.N.M.
College, Parsathua.
II) For setting aside the
illegal extension granted to the present
Vice Chancellor of Veer Kunwar Singh
University against the statute and law
by the chancellor.”
3. Ms. Archana Sinha, learned Senior Counsel has
submitted that the respondent no. 3, the Vice Chancellor, Veer
Kunwar Singh University, has completed his tenure of three
years, but he was given extension by the office of Chancellor
beyond the act and law till the appointment of new Vice
Chancellor. Besides the aforesaid submission, it is further
contended that the officers of the University, including the
respondent no. 3 are indulged in financial irregularities by
adopting unfair modes and manners.
4. After having carefully heard the learned Senior
Counsel and the learned Counsel for the respondents, in
opposition of the aforesaid submissions, prima facie, this Court
finds that the entire case of the petitioner is based upon alleged
Patna High Court CWJC No.4101 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
3/4
unauthorized continuation of service of respondent no. 3,
however, with utter surprise he has not been made party
respondent by his name.
5. It is needless to observe here, that if any challenge
is made to an individual’s right to hold a public office, on
account of having lack of eligibility to hold such post, the
remedy of writ of quo warranto is already available under the
Constitution of India.
6. Even as regards the filing of a public interest
litigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again
cautioned that such a course of action is not permissible so far
as service matters are concerned. Vide Dr. Duryodhan Sahu &
Ors. -Vrs.- Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., (1998) 7 Supreme
Court Cases 273, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware -Vrs.- State of
Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 590 and
Neetu -Vrs.- State of Punjab & Ors., (2007) 10 Supreme Court
Cases 614.
7. Further in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan
Pathan -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2013) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 465, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterating the
aforenoted legal position has held that public interest litigation
should not be entertained in service matter.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4101 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
4/4
8. Moreover, the petitioner is not remedy-less, if he
has material evidence that persons are engaged in financial
irregularities, he may take recourse available under the law. If
any issue, containing serious allegation and imputation, is
levelled, which requires proper in-depth enquiry and
investigation, normally the writ petition by way of public
interest litigation should not be entertained.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and the position
obtaining in law, we do not find any merit in the present public
interest litigation. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U
Checking your session…