Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar JaysawalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as frivolous, ill‑conceived and vexatious, with costs imposed on the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, a former Principal‑cum‑Secretary of a college, sought a writ of certiorari to quash his dismissal order dated 11‑01‑2022 and mandamus to reinstate him, relying on an order of the District Teacher Appellate Authority dated 19‑12‑2023 that had set aside the dismissal. The High Court held that the dismissal order had already been nullified and therefore could not be challenged again, and that the petitioner could not enforce the appellate authority's reinstatement order through a writ because the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees Rules, 2020 provide a specific remedial mechanism. The Court also ruled that a prayer for initiating contempt proceedings could not be entertained under Article 226. Consequently, the petition was declared frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, dismissed, and a cost of Rs 20,000 was imposed on the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging a termination order that has been set aside by a competent authority is maintainable.
- Whether the High Court can enforce an order of the District Teacher Appellate Authority through writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
- Whether a prayer for initiating contempt proceedings can be entertained in a writ petition under Article 226.
- Whether the petitioner must avail the specific statutory remedy under the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees Rules, 2020 before approaching the High Court.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- vexatious litigation
- termination of service
- reinstatement
- contempt proceedings
- statutory remedy
- Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees Rules, 2020
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7112 of 2025
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Jaysawal S/o Late Prahalad Prasad Jaysawal, Mohalla-Sabni
Mandi Road, Ward No. -21, P.S.-Raxaul, Distt-East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Sitamarhi.
4. The Bihar School Examination Board, Budh Marg, Patna through its
Secretary.
5. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Budh Marg, Patna.
6. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Budh Marg, Patna.
7. The Director (Academic), Bihar School Examination Board, Budh Marg,
Patna.
8. Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Memorial College, Bairgania, Distt-Sitamarhi
through its chairman Ramdeo Prasad Gadia, S/o Nand Lal Gadia, Resident
of Mohalla-Baudhi Mata Mandir Road, Ward No.-12, P.S.-Bairgania, Distt-
Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md. Shahnawaz Ali
For the BSEB Mr. P.K.Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kumar Shanu
For the State : Dr. Md. Raisul Haque, SC 10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel appearing for the BSEB and learned counsel for the
respondent-State.
2. The petitioner, in the present writ application,
has prayed for the grant of the following reliefs:-
(i) A writ, order and direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash the order vide letter no.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7112 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
2/7
05/22 date 11.01.2022 issued by the
Respondent no 8 whereby and where under the
petitioner is dismissed from service from the
post as Principle cum Secretary o PDDUM
College, Bairgania Sitamarhi, (College code-
32022), be issued.
(ii) A writ, order and direction in the nature of
mandamus directing and commanding the
respondent no. 8 to reinstate the petitioner in
service with retrospective effect with all
admissible allowances, be issued.
(iii) A writ, order and direction in the nature of
mandamus directing and commanding the
respondent no 8 to comply with the order dated
29/2023 02/21 19.12.2023 pass in complaint
case no 29/2023 passed by District Appellate
Authority Sitamarhi wherein it is specifically
ordered that letter issued by Respondent no 8
vide its letter no 02/21 dated 01.10,2021 and
letter no 05/22 dated 11.01.2022 regarding
suspension and dismissal is quashed /cancelled
and further order to reinstate the petitioner in
service with retrospective effect with all
admissible allowances with effect from
01.10.2021, be issued.
(iv) A writ, order and direction in the nature of
mandamus directing and commanding the
respondents to initiate the contempt proceeding
against Respondent no 8 in disobedient case no
06/2024 and to stay the memo no 83 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.7112 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
3/7
25.03.2025 where by one Navin Kumar Mishra
is alleged to be appointed as Principal cum
Secretary and allowed him to received the
amount of grant in aid as per the order dated
25.03.2025 passed in contempt case no
06/2024 passed by District Appellate Authority,
Satimarhi, be issued.”
3. The case of the petitioner is that, vide Order
No.05/2022 dated 11.01.2022 (Annexure-P/7), issued by
respondent no.8, the petitioner was dismissed from service from
the post of Principal-cum-Secretary of PDDUM College,
Bairgania, Satimarhi. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal,
the petitioner preferred Complaint Case No. 29/2023 before the
District Teacher Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Complaint Case No 29/2023 was decided in favour of the
petitioner, vide order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure-P/12),
whereby the impugned termination order was set aside, and the
petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service. The operative
portion of the order dated 19.12.2023, passed by the District
Teacher Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi is quoted hereinbelow
for needful:-
“vr% vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fd;s fd mijksDr rF; vkSj
muds }kjk izLrqr dkxtkr ls Li’V izrhr gksrk gS fd Jh
Patna High Court CWJC No.7112 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
4/7
jkenso xkfM;k v/;{k izca/k lfefr “kklh fudk; cSjxfu;k dk
vkns”k i=kad 02@2021 fnukad 01-10-2021 fuyEcu i= ,oa
i=kad 05@2022 fnukad 11-01-2022 c[kkZLrxh i= xyr rF;ksa
ij vk/kkfjr gS vkSj vkuu Qkuu esa mDr vkns”k ikfjr fd;k
x;k gS tks fujLr djus ;ksX; gSA vr% Jh jkenso xkfM;k v/;{k
izca/k lfefr “kklh fudk; cSjxfu;k dk i=kad 02@2021
fnukad 01-10-2021 fuyEcu i= ,oa i=kad 05@2022 fnukad
11-01-2022 c[kkZLrxh i= dks jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA vihykFkhZ dk
vihy Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA rn~uqlkj Jh jkenso xkfM;k v/;
{k izca/k lfefr “kklh fudk; cSjxfu;k dks vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS
fd vihykFkhZ lquhy dqekj tk;loky dks fnukad 01-10-2021 ds
iwoZ dh fLFkfr cgky djsa ,oa iwoZ dh rjg muds in ij dk;Z
lEiknu djus dh vuqefr nh tkrh gSA”
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated
19.12.2023, passed by the District Teacher Appellate Authority,
Sitamarhi, the Chairman of the College in question preferred a
writ application bearing CWJC No. 7401 of 2024. The said writ
application was disposed of on 15.04.2025, granting liberty to
the Chairman of the concerned college to approach the State
Appellate Authority within a period of one month from the date
of the order for assailing the order of the District Teacher
Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi.
6. It is further informed by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that pursuant thereto, the Chairman
of the concerned College has preferred an appeal before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7112 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
5/7
State Appellate Authority, which is presently pending
consideration. It is thus contended that, as on date, the
termination order dated 11.01.2022 no longer subsists in the eye
of law, as it has already been set aside by the District Teacher
Appellate Authority, vide order dated 19.12.2023. Despite this,
the petitioner has not been reinstated in service in compliance of
the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by District Teacher Appellate
Authority, Sitamarhi.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar
School Examination Board and learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-State submit that this writ application is
completely ill-conceived and not maintainable for the reason
that it has been filed challenging the same order of termination
contained in letter no. 05/2022 dated 11.01.2022, which
admittedly has already been set aside and, therefore, no longer
survives in law. It is further submitted that the writ petition,
insofar as it seeks implementation of the order passed by the
District Teacher Appellate Authority, is not maintainable. It is
further contended by the respondent-parties that even the relief
claimed in paragraph 1(iv) of the writ application, seeking
initiation of contempt against respondent no.8, is also legally
untenable and misconceived, as such a relief cannot be granted
Patna High Court CWJC No.7112 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
6/7
in a writ application under article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
8. Having heard the parties, this Court is of the
considered view that the present writ application is wholly ill-
conceived and is a vexatious application filed by the petitioner
for the reason that once the order of termination dated
11.01.2022 already stood set aside on 19.12.2023 by the District
Teacher Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi and had ceased to exist
in the eye of law, there was/is no occasion for the petitioner to
challenge the same in the present writ application. Also, the
present writ application for implementation of the order dated
19.12.2023, passed in Complaint Case No.29/2023 by the
District Teacher Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi is not
maintainable in law, particularly when the applicable statutory
framework, namely, the Bihar State Teaching Institutions
Teachers and Emp. Rules, 2020 provides a specific remedy for
enforcement of such orders. The petitioner ought to have fully
availed the said statutory remedy, instead of invoking the writ
jurisdiction of this Court. The prayer for initiating a contempt
proceeding against respondent no.8 is equally ill-conceived for
the reason that such a relief cannot be sought in an application
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7112 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
7/7
9. In view of the foregoing submissions, all the reliefs
claimed by the petitioner are found to be completely frivolous,
vexatious and devoid of merit.
10. It is further observed that, during the course of
argument, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
despite the apparent infirmity and lack of maintainability,
continued to press the matter on merits, thereby consuming
valuable judicial time of this Court. It also amounts to an abuse
of the process of the Court.
11. Under these circumstances, the present writ
application is dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/- imposed on
the petitioner, to be deposited with the Patna High Court Legal
Services Authority for filing frivolous, ill-conceived and
vexatious writ application.
12. Accordingly, the present writ application is
dismissed on the aforesaid terms.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
HR/-
U
Checking your session…