Patna High Court
Higher StudiesversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The impugned order rejecting recognition was set aside as perverse and illegal for lacking reasons, and the petitioner was entitled to a fresh order in light of AICTE approval and university recommendation.
Summary
The G.D. Mishra Institute applied for affiliation to offer B.B.A., B.C.A., and B.Lib. courses and obtained AICTE approval and a recommendation from Veer Kunwar Singh University after physical inspection. Despite this, the State of Bihar rejected the institute's request for recognition via a letter dated 19.05.2025, providing no specific reasons or reference to the deficiencies under the guidelines of Letter No. 1140 dated 18.06.2014. The petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary, perverse, and violated the principle of reasoned decision‑making, while the State contended that the institute failed to meet the stipulated conditions. The High Court held that the impugned order lacked any discussion of the specific unmet requirements and therefore was illegal and a breach of natural justice. Consequently, the court set aside the State's order, allowed the writ petition, and directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Higher Education, to issue a fresh order within eight weeks, taking into account the university’s recommendation and AICTE approval.
Issues considered
- Whether the State's order rejecting recognition of the institute's courses is perverse and illegal for failing to specify the reasons for denial.
- Whether the institute is entitled to recognition and affiliation after obtaining AICTE approval and university recommendation.
- Whether the principles of natural justice require the State to disclose specific deficiencies under Letter No. 1140 before rejecting the application.
Subjects
- recognition of courses
- affiliation
- AICTE approval
- natural justice
- perverse order
- higher education
- university affiliation
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8509 of 2025
======================================================
G.D. Mishra Institute of Higher Studies Mathia Gurudas, Lalganj Road, P.O.-
Sondhila, Buxar- 802103, through its Secretary, Pradeep Kumar Mishra,
Gender- Male, aged about 60 Years, Son of Late Ganesh Dutt Mishra,
Resident of Maurya Vihar Colony, Police Station- Phulwari Sharif in the
District of Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara, 802301 (Bihar).
5. All India Council for Technical Education, through its Member Secretary,
Nelson Mandela Marg Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Dutt Mishra, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Narayan Singh, AC to AG
For the V.K.S.U. : Mr. Bimal Kishor Singh, Adv. With
Mr. Rajesh Prasad Chaudhary, Adv.
For the AICTE : Ms. Archana, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-01-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner-institute, through its Secretary,
has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, seeking a direction
upon the respondents, especially respondent nos. 2 and 3, to
grant recognition in its favour for commencing B.B.A., B.C.A.
and B.Lib. courses from the academic session of 2025–26 and
further to direct the respondent-University to issue an affiliation
Patna High Court CWJC No.8509 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
2/6
letter to conduct the aforesaid courses.
3. The short facts as narrated in the writ petition
are relevant for consideration; the petitioner-institute had
applied for affiliation for the afore-noted courses. On receipt of
the application, the respondent-University constituted a three-
member committee for physical inspection of the college.
Accordingly, the committee inspected the institute and informed
the Director, Department of Higher Education, Bihar, Patna, that
before extending recognition, it is necessary for the institute to
get approval from AICTE for vocational courses.
4. In the aforesaid premise, the petitioner-institute
applied for approval of the courses from AICTE and, on being
satisfied that the institute in question fulfilled all the
requirements, the letter of approval was issued by AICTE in
favor of the institute. The aforesaid letter was placed before the
Registrar of the University and, accordingly, the Affiliation
Committee of the University made a recommendation for 60
seats each for B.B.A. and B.C.A. courses to the petitioner-
institute after getting a proper recommendation from the
Syndicate and Senate of the University.
5. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, when the
petitioner-institution had not been extended recognition, they
Patna High Court CWJC No.8509 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
3/6
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner
submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition,
the respondent State authorities came out with letter no. 15/A 3-
01/2024 dated 19.05.2025 issued under the signature of the
Deputy Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, whereby the application for recognition of the aforesaid
courses came to be rejected by the Government. Taking this
Court through the afore-noted order, it is submitted that, besides
the fact that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, perverse
and illegal, the same suffers from non-application of mind,
inasmuch as the concerned respondent has not disclosed as to
which requisite conditions are not being fulfilled by the
petitioner-institution. In the impugned order, there is only a bald
statement that the petitioner-institution does not fulfill the
requirements as stipulated under letter no. 1140 dated
18.06.2014.
7. Taking this Court through letter no. 1140 dated
18.06.2014, the learned Advocate for the petitioner further
contended that the said letter contains the guidelines prescribing
the requirement with the terms and conditions to be maintained
by the institution/college before getting recognition or approval
Patna High Court CWJC No.8509 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
4/6
from the State and the University. Admittedly, after proper
physical verification and approval from AICTE, the University
has made recommendation in favor of the petitioner-institution
for granting recognition. However, while turning down such
recommendation, it has not been disclosed or even there is no
whisper as to which requirement could not have been fulfilled
by the petitioner-institution.
8. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the
State, referring to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of
respondents no. 1 and 3, contended that the impugned order
categorically states that the petitioner-institution does not fulfill
the requisite conditions as required under the letter no. 1140
dated 18.06.2014, and as such, the claim of the petitioner for
recognition was turned down.
9. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the
respective parties, this Court primarily took note of the fact that
there is no dispute with regard to the recommendation made by
the University in favor of the petitioner-institution after proper
physical verification, upon due approval of Syndicate and
Senate. Once the recommendation has been made in favor of the
petitioner-institution, the respondent-State is obliged to inform
the petitioner as to which requirement is falling short of or not
Patna High Court CWJC No.8509 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
5/6
being fulfilled by the petitioner-institution as prescribed in the
guidelines contained in Letter No.1140 dated 18.06.2014, in
absence of which the recognition could not have been granted.
Failure to do so would make the order vulnerable to challenge
being perverse, illegal and suffers from obvious non-application
of mind.
10. On perusal of the impugned order, it is
manifest there is no discussion, much less any reason, as to
which of the requisites requirement(s), as noted in the guidelines
attached to letter no. 1140 dated 18.06.2014, was not fulfilled by
the petitioner- institution. The petitioner institution has every
right to know the reason for disagreement, besides the
requirement which has not been fulfilled by it, once the
recommendation made by the Affiliation Committee of the
University has been turned down.
11. The Court time and again underscored that
absence of sound reason is not mere irregularity but patent
illegality. The impugned order lacks reasons for rejection of the
claim of the petitioner-institution for recognition, and as such,
this Court is left with no option but to set aside the impugned
order dated 19.05.2025 as contained in letter no.15/A 3-01/2024.
Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed. Interlocutory
Patna High Court CWJC No.8509 of 2025 dt.08-01-2026
6/6
Application No.1 of 2025 also stands allowed.
12. The matter is relegated to the Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna to pass a fresh order in the light of the
recommendation made by the University as well as the approval
granted by the AICTE, preferably within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, in
accordance with law. Needless to observe that if the petitioner-
institution lacks any requirement for recognition, the order must
disclose the same in specific terms.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.01.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…