Patna High Court
Md. Sultan AhmadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court disposed the petition without deciding the merits, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the authority and not expressing any opinion on the validity of the impugned rule.
Summary
Petitioner Md. Sultan Ahmad challenged the validity of Rule‑6 issued under Resolution No. 970 dated 31‑08‑2013, which mandated that teachers appointed after 15‑02‑2011 receive contributions based on a fixed salary rather than the regular pay‑scale. He alleged that the rule was ultra vires and retrospectively affected appointments, seeking a writ of mandamus against the State of Bihar and related officials. The Court noted that similar petitions (CWJC No. 985 of 2015 and CWJC No. 4517 of 2021) had been disposed of in the petitioner’s favour, but observed that the petitioner had not filed any representation with the concerned authority. The Court therefore dismissed the writ petition without addressing the merits, but granted the petitioner liberty to approach the authority and submit the earlier judgments as part of his representation.
Issues considered
- Whether Rule‑6 under Resolution No. 970 is ultra vires and can have retrospective effect on teachers appointed after 15‑02‑2011
- Whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate in the absence of a prior representation to the authority
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief granted in earlier similar writ petitions
Subjects
- mandamus
- ultra vires
- retrospective legislation
- education department
- teacher contribution
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9443 of 2025
======================================================
Md. Sultan Ahmad, Son of Late Md. Alauddin, Resident of village- Rajpur,
P.S. Kishanpur, District- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Special Director, Secondary Education, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
4. The Joint Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
5. The District Education Officer, Supaul District Supaul.
6. The District Program Officer (Establishment) Supaul, District- Supaul.
7. The District Program Officer (Secondary Education), Supaul, District-
Supaul.
8. The Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna Through Secretary Apex
Tower, Harron Nagar Colony Sector-2, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, Patna
9. The Secretary, Madarsa Education Board, Patna, Through Secretary, Apex
Tower, Harron Nagar Colony Sector-2, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, Patna
10. The Secretary, Madarsa Hanifa Majeedia Rajpur, Supaul, Madar No 250.
11. The Head Maulvi Madarsa Hanifa Majidia Rajpur, District- Supaul
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Musowir, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
For the Madarsa Board : Md. Aslam Ansari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 24-02-2026
This Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case has been filed by
the petitioner Md. Sultan Ahmad seeking for following reliefs:-
“That, by this writ petition, the
petitioner would like to challenge the validity
of Rule-6 issued under the signature of the
Respondents no. 4 and contained in his
Patna High Court CWJC No.9443 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
2/3
Resolution no. 970 dated 31.8.2013 and
declare its ultra- virus, whereby and where
under the instruction has been issued that the
contribution will be paid on the basis of
calculation of fixed salary to those teachers in
place of regular pay-scale, who are appointed
against the vacancy on or after 15.2.2011 by
the State Government.
Alternatively to declare that the
Resolution no. 970 dated 31.08.2013 could
not take its retrospective effect i.e. with effect
from 15.2.2011 for debarring the appointee
against the vacancy on or after 15.2.2011
though the impugned Resolution itself is
effective from 01.04.2013 according to the
Respondents themselves.
The petitioner would further like to
pray before this Hon’ble Court that a writ of
MANDAMUS be issued against the
Respondents.”
2. During course of argument, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that similarly situated persons approached
this Court in CWJC No. 985 of 2015 so also in CWJC No. 4517
of 2021 and their cases were disposed of vide order dated
27.03.2019 and 25.04.2023 respectively, they have got the
necessary reliefs and in view of such order passed in the
identical matters, the petitioner is entitled to get the relief.
3. When we posed a pertinent question to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9443 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
3/3
learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any
representation has been made by the petitioner before the
concerned authority for ventilating his grievance basing on the
orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, the
answer was in negative.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
submits that the liberty may be granted to the petitioner to
approach the concerned authority by filing representation and
also annexing the copies of the orders passed in the aforesaid
two writ petitions.
5. In view of such submission, the writ petition is
disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the
concerned authority for ventilating his grievance.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…