Patna High Court
Bihar through the Chief Secretary,versusChitra Devi @ Kumari Chitra Devi
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The termination order was set aside as the State was denied a reasonable opportunity to file a counter‑affidavit, necessitating remand for fresh consideration.
Summary
The State of Bihar appealed a single judge’s order that set aside the termination of a school teacher, Chitra Devi, and directed corrective action. The writ petition challenged a circular denying reservation benefits to out‑of‑state female and disabled candidates in the CTET and a show‑cause notice alleging the teacher scored less than 60% in CTET. The single judge had quashed the termination on the ground that no regular inquiry was held and the District Education Officer lacked jurisdiction. On appeal, the High Court held that the State was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to file a counter‑affidavit, rendering the termination order void. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration before the single judge, without expressing any view on the merits of the reservation or eligibility issues.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Education Officer had jurisdiction to terminate the teacher without a regular inquiry.
- Whether the termination order violated the procedural fairness requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
- Whether the denial of reservation benefits to out‑of‑state female and disabled candidates contravenes applicable law.
- Whether the State was denied the opportunity to file a counter‑affidavit, thereby affecting the validity of the termination order.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005
- Bihar State School Teachers (Appointment, Transfer, Disciplinary Proceedings and Services Conditions) Rules, 2023
- Constitution of India — s. 311(2)
Subjects
- reservation
- employment termination
- procedural fairness
- Article 311
- Bihar education service
- CTET
- discrimination
- jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.656 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3887 of 2025
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director (Secondary Education), Education Department, Government of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
6. The District Education Officer, East Champaran at Motihari.
7. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), East Champaran at
Motihari.
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Chitra Devi @ Kumari Chitra Devi D/o Ghanshyam Singh, Resident of
Village - Rustampur Taqipuara Pooran, Post - Mahua, P.S. - Nehtaur,
District- Bijnor (U.P.), presently posted as School Teacher (TRE-2), Class -
6-8 Subject Math and Science in Government Middle School, Bahuari,
Block - Motihari, District- East Champaran at Motihari.
2. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Through its Chairman, 15,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar Patna.
5. The Joint Secretary- cum- Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
Ms. Surya Nilambari, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Alok Abhinav, Advocate
Ms. Diksha Kumari, Advocate
For the Intervenor : Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.656 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
2/8
Mr. Kanishka Shankar
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 31-03-2026
Re: Interlocutory Application No. 03 of 2025 in
Heard Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the applicant.
2. Considering the submission advanced by the learned
Senior Counsel, we do not find any merit in the application.
Accordingly, the intervention application stands dismissed.
Re: Letters Patent Appeal No. 656 of 2025
3. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
State challenging the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3887 of 2025 for setting
aside the order of termination of the writ petitioner dated
07.02.2025 and further directing the Additional Chief Secretary,
Education Department, Government of Bihar to take corrective
action in accordance with law.
4. The writ petition was filed seeking for the following
relief(s):
“For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of certiorari for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.656 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
3/8
quashing and set aside the Letter No.1341
dated 15.05.2024 (Annexure P/10) issued
under the signature of the Director
Secondary Education (Respondent No.4)
by which it has instructed to all District
Education Officers under the State of
Bihar to not provide benefit of reservation
to the candidates belonging from other
state coming under the category of female
and disabled at par with the candidates of
said category of the State of Bihar in
Central Teacher's Eligibility Test
(hereinafter CTET) and also for quashing
the Memo No.547 dated 31.01.2025
(Annexure P/11) issued under the
signature of the Respondent no.11 whereby
and whereunder the petitioner has been
directed to submit show cause reply to the
effect that she has obtained less than 60 %
marks in CTET, therefore, her appointment
is liable to be canceled, the aforesaid
notifications are contrary to conditions
laid down in the Advertisement No.27 of
2023 dated 04.11.2023(Annexure P/1) by
which following the procedure, the
petitioner has been appointed as School
teacher, moreover, the said notifications
are in teeth of a letter issued by the then
Director, Primary Education, Govt. of
Bihar vide letter no.666 dated 13.07.2021
(Annexure P/14) in which female
candidates either of the resident of Bihar
or other States have been put under same
category, more so the show cause is in
contravention of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by which no
discrimination can be made on the ground
of place of birth or residence.
(ii) For issuance of an
Patna High Court L.P.A No.656 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
4/8
appropriate writ in the nature of
mandamus, commanding and directing the
respondents concerned to not disturb the
petitioner in smooth functioning of the
Government School. The petitioner as
school teacher working in her appointed
school as she has been appointed in
pursuant to conditions laid down in
Advertisement No.27 of 2023 dated
04.11.2023 (Anneuxre P/1) and at point of
time she has not concealed any fact during
the entire selection process and after due
verification by the competent authority she
have been appointed as school teacher.
(iii) Further for direction to the
respondents concerned not to make any
employment/selection/appointment in pace
of the selected petitioner as school teacher.
(iv) For any other relief/reliefs
for which the petitioner is entitled to in
accordance with law."
5. It appears from the impugned order that the matter
was taken up for the first time on 20.03.2025 and on that day,
the Court considered the Interlocutory Application No. 01 of
2025, which has been filed by the petitioner for addition of
some reliefs in paragraph no. 1 of the writ petition and the
interim application was allowed and it was directed that the
reliefs as prayed for in paragraph no. 1 of the Interlocutory
Application be added in paragraph no. 1 of the main petition in
addition to those already prayed for by the petitioner.
Needless to say that the necessity of filing the interim
Patna High Court L.P.A No.656 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
5/8
application arose because during the pendency of the writ
petition, the District Education Officer, East Champaran,
Motihari, vide Memo No. 661 dated 07.02.2025, terminated the
services of eight school teachers including the petitioner in
accordance with the provision of Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and therefore,
the said termination order was prayed for to be challenged by
way of amendment to the prayer portion. However, it seems that
on the very day, the matter was also taken up for final disposal
and the impugned order was passed. The learned Single Judge,
after noting down the contention of the respective parties and
taking note of some decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
came to hold that without holding a regular inquiry, the
termination order could not have been passed without giving an
opportunity of being heard and further the action has been taken
by the District Education Officer who has no jurisdiction and
therefore, the action taken by the authority is void.
6. The learned Advocate General submitted that when
the matter was listed for consideration of the interim application
in which a prayer was made for amendment of the prayer
portion and it was allowed, without giving a reasonable
opportunity to the State to file the counter affidavit, the matter
Patna High Court L.P.A No.656 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
6/8
could not have taken up on merit and disposed of on the first
day itself by passing the impugned order. It is further submitted
that the grounds on which the impugned order of termination
was set aside is not sustainable in the eyes of law and had the
opportunity of filing the counter affidavit been afforded, the
State could have been in a position to substantiate how such
termination order is justified in the eyes of law. Referring to the
Bihar State School Teachers (Appointment, Transfer,
Disciplinary Proceedings and Services Conditions) Rules, 2023
which defines ‘Appointing Authority’ under Section 2 (xiv), the
learned Advocate General contended that the District Education
Officer is the competent authority to pass the order.
7. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent on the
other hand submitted that the order was not only passed by the
District Education Officer only but jointly with the District
Programme Officer and therefore, the learned Single Judge has
rightly held it to be without jurisdiction.
So far as the second ground on which the relief has
been granted to the writ petitioner, as per the submission of the
learned Advocate General, there was no necessity of conducting
any regular inquiry and affording opportunity of hearing and
thereby fulfilling the requirement of Article 311(2) of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.656 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
7/8
Constitution of India. It is further argued that horizontal
reservation provided under resolution as contained in Memo No.
963 dated 20.01.2016 was meant only for such women who
were permanent residents of State of Bihar.
8. Be that as it may, we find that in view of the
averments taken in the writ petition, the submission that has
been advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Single Judge should have given an opportunity to the
State to file the counter affidavit and the same having not been
done, the State has been deprived of the opportunity to justify
the termination order. We are of the humble view that since
State of Bihar was not afforded reasonable opportunity to file its
counter affidavit, in such a situation, on the first date itself, the
matter should not have been disposed of on merit. It is not a
case where the State has declined or failed to file counter
affidavit in spite of reasonable opportunity given. Accordingly,
in the fitness of things, we are of the view that the matter should
be remanded back for fresh consideration on merit in
accordance with law before the learned Single Judge having
roster of the matter giving due opportunity to the State to file
counter affidavit.
9. It is made clear that we have not expressed any
Patna High Court L.P.A No.656 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
8/8
opinion on the merits of the case and we are setting aside the
impugned order only on the ground that the opportunity of filing
the counter affidavit has not been provided to the learned
counsel for the State.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The
Letters Patent Appeal is allowed.
11. The parties are at liberty to raise all the points
before the learned Single Judge having roster.
12. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
shailendra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 02.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.