Patna High Court
Shyama Kant Giri,versusThe State of Bihar,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an alternative remedy, and therefore the petition is dismissed.
Summary
Shyama Kant Giri, a teacher, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 23‑02‑2022 issued by the Director of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, which rejected his request to resume duties as an English teacher and to regularise his services at a government school in East Champaran. He also asked that the annexure supporting the order be declared a nullity and that the respondents be directed to allow him to resume teaching. The State respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy – an appeal before the Secretary of the Department – and therefore the writ jurisdiction was not appropriate. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 6719 of 2012), which held that a petitioner with an equally efficacious alternative remedy cannot invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the matter before the competent authority under the existing administrative procedure.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has a maintainable writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy is available.
- Whether the order dated 23‑02‑2022 rejecting the petitioner’s request can be quashed by a writ.
- Whether the High Court can entertain the petition in view of the Supreme Court precedent on alternative remedies.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- alternative remedy
- quashing order
- regularisation of services
- SC/ST welfare department
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5674 of 2022
======================================================
Shyama Kant Giri, S/o Raghunath Giri, Resident of Village - Baudha, Suganv,
P.S. - Sugauli, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Director, Welfare, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Collector - Cum - District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari.
6. The District Welfare Officer, East Champaran at Motihari.
7. The Headmaster, Government Ambedkar Residential High School, Sugaon,
Block - Sugauli, District - East Champaran.
8. The Special Secretary, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. K. Mandal, SC-3
: Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
10 18-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
A. For issuance of an appropriate writ/s
order/s, direction for the followings:-
I. To quash the order dated 23.02.2022
passed by the respondent no. 3
rejecting the prayer of the petitioner
to allow him to perform his duties as
English teacher at Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.5674 of 2022(10) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
Ambedkar Residential High School,
Sugaon, Block- Sugauli, District-
East Champaran and to regularize
his services as this order is absolutely
a non speaking order and no rhyme
and reason has been assigned for
rejection of the aforesaid prayer of
the petitioner (Annexure-11).
II. To treat the annexure 11 to this
application to be nullity and non-est
in the eye of law.
III. To give a direction to the
respondents to allow the petitioner to
resume his teaching assignments at
the school in question and to consider
his case for regularization in
accordance with law.
B. For any other relief/s to which the
petitioner is found entitled to.
3. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State-respondents submits that the petitioner has
got an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Secretary
of the Department challenging the order passed by the Director,
The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna vide Letter No. 656 dated
23.02.2022.
4. In view of the statements made by the learned
counsel for the State-respondents and in view of the recent
Patna High Court CWJC No.5674 of 2022(10) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal No. 6719 of 2012, Rikhab Chand Jain vs Union Of
India & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
paragraph no.15 has held as follows;
15. In our considered opinion, the
appellant having had a remedy before
the High Court in a separate jurisdiction
which was equally efficacious, he
indulged in the (mis) adventure of
invoking its writ jurisdiction which was
rightly not entertained.
5. The present writ petition is disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to approach before the Competent
Authority in accordance with law.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
U
Checking your session…