Patna High Court
Lalan Kumar BaudhversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
Public interest litigation is not a permissible forum for service matters; the appropriate remedy is a quo warranto proceeding, and therefore the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Lalan Kumar Baudh, filed a public interest litigation seeking the removal of the Vice‑Chancellor and Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor of Magadh University for alleged financial irregularities and continuation beyond their statutory tenure. The petition also demanded a forensic audit of university funds and a special investigation into alleged illegal withdrawals. The Court examined whether a PIL is the proper vehicle for challenging service‑related appointments and noted that the remedy of quo warranto under the Constitution is available for such disputes. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that service matters cannot be entertained through PILs and that the petitioner was not without alternative remedy. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as lacking merit. The decision underscores the principle that administrative appointments must be challenged through appropriate service‑law remedies, not public interest litigation.
Issues considered
- Can a public interest litigation be entertained to challenge the continuation of a university Vice‑Chancellor beyond his statutory tenure on grounds of alleged financial irregularities?
- Is the remedy of quo warranto under the Constitution the appropriate mechanism for such a challenge?
- Is the petitioner without any other effective remedy, thereby justifying the use of PIL?
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- service matters
- quo warranto
- administrative fairness
- university governance
- financial irregularities
- Bihar Finance Rules
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4102 of 2026
======================================================
Lalan Kumar Baudh S/o- Ram Bialsh Ram, R/O Village- Dudhaila, Jamhor,
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, Governors Secretariate,
Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.
3. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Bihar.
4. The Pro Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Bihar.
5. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Bihar.
6. The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Bihar.
7. The Accountant General, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, 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. Invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this
Court, the present writ petition by way of public interest
litigation is filed for the following reliefs:-
“a. For issuance of proper
writ and direction/order in Public Interest
Litigation/(PIL) to direct constitution of
SIT/SMU inquiry into financial
Patna High Court CWJC No.4102 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
2/4
irregularities in Magadh University.
b. Direct investigation into
illegal withdrawal of funds from account
of Anugrah Narayan College.
c. Direct forensic audit of
examination funds transferred to M/s
Chaudhary Printing Press.
d. Restrain Respondent No. 4
from continuing on the post of Vice
Chancellor beyond 15.02.2026 which was
done by the office of chancellor by
violating the Act /Law.”
3. Ms. Archana Sinha, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the continuation of respondent no. 3 on the post
of Vice Chancellor of Magadh University, Bodh Gaya beyond
the completion of his statutory tenure on 15.02.2026, despite
serious and substantial allegation against him regarding
financial irregularities, unauthorized withdrawal of institutional
funds and violation of Bihar Finance Rules, 2005, is wholly
arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the settled principles of
administrative fairness and institutional integrity. Further
permitting respondent no. 4 to continue in such a constitutional
office, on the face of pending allegation, not only erodes public
confidence in the functioning of the University administration,
but also undermines the principles of transparency,
accountability and good governance in public institutions,
thereby being manifestly against public interest.
4. After having carefully heard the learned Senior
Patna High Court CWJC No.4102 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
3/4
Counsel as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents, in
opposition to aforesaid contention, prima facie, this Court finds
that the grievance of the petitioner is mainly based upon the
unauthorized continuation of respondent nos. 3 and 4 on their
respective post, but surprisingly, they have not been made party
respondents by their names.
5. Suffice it to observe 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 and not by way of public interest litigation.
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 SCC 273,
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
(2005) 1 SCC 590 and Neetu -Vrs.- State of Punjab & Ors.,
(2007) 10 SCC 614.
7. Further in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan
Pathan -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 465,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterating the aforenoted legal
Patna High Court CWJC No.4102 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
4/4
position has held that public interest litigation should not be
entertained in service matter.
8. Moreover, the petitioner is not remedy-less, if he
has material evidence that persons are engaged in financial
irregularities. However, if such imputation and allegation
requires proper indepth 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…