[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Jyoti Narain Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 9 December, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6253 of 2025
======================================================
Jyoti Narain Singh, Son of Birbhadra Prasad Narain Singh, resident of 32
Power House Road, Dumri Road, Near Pushpanjali Gas Service, Maripur,
Musahri Farm, P.O.- Musahri, P.S.- Kazi Mohammadpur, District-
Muzaffarpur, Pin - 842002.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chancellor of Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.
4. B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar.
5. Vice Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.
6. Registrar, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.
7. Dr. Binay Shanker Roy, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted
and working in the capacity of Professor and Head of the University
Department of English, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Shreyanshi Raj, Advocate
Mr. Raushan, Advocate
Md. Tauseef Waquar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sazid Salim Khan, SC- 25
For the Resp. No.7 : Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Chandan Jha, Advocate
For the Chancellor : Mr. R. K. Giri, Advocate
Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advocate
For the University : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samarendra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-12-2025
This Court has heard the learned Senior Advocate/
Advocate for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the Office order
dated 17.02.2025, bearing Memo No. B/344, issued by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
2/20
Registrar of the Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar
University, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the
University') by which the petitioner has been transferred from
University Department of English of the University to T.P.
Verma College, Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran on
administrative grounds and accordingly relieved from the
University Department of English and has further been debarred
from any other job or responsibility, including examination for
the next two years with effect from the date/issue of the said
order. The petitioner also sought a direction upon the concerned
respondents to take appropriate step towards considering the
case of the petitioner for appointing him in the capacity of the
Head of the University Department of English by dint of his
seniority in accordance with the provisions contained under the
Statutes for Scheme of Rotation of Headship in the Department
of Universities/College of the Universities in the State of Bihar,
as communicated by letter dated 30.06.2008, bearing Memo No.
BSU-26/2008-2155/GS(I) issued from the Governor's
Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.
3. The brief facts, relevant for consideration are that
the writ petitioner was duly appointed against the post of
Lecturer in English, based upon the recommendation made by
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
3/20
the Bihar State University Service Commission (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Commission') vide notification dated
04.11.1996
; following his joining on the said post on
06.11.1996. Subsequent upon his joining, the respondent no.7
was appointed in the Services of the University in the capacity
of Lecturer in English in the year 2003 and due confirmation of
his services with effect from 25.08.2003.
4. The general conditions of service of employees
of the Patna, Bihar, Ranchi, Bhagalpur, Magadh, L.N. Mithila
and K.S.D. Sanskrit Universities, especially Article 3(7) of the
Service Statutes provide that the period of service rendered with
any other previous university is only to be considered for
continuity of service for the purpose of protection of pay and
allowances draw, leave and half pay leave earned in that
University and the age of retirement as well as the grant of
benefit thereof but not for determination of his seniority.
Nonetheless, while the petitioner and respondent no.7 were
continuing in the capacity of Reader/Associate Professor in the
services of the University by a notification dated 26.03.2017,
duly approved by the Syndicate of the University, the petitioner
was granted promotion in the rank of Professor in English in the
services of the University w.e.f. 06.11.2013, whereas the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
respondent no.7 was granted promotion in the rank of Professor
in English w.e.f. 28.08.2012 after taking into account of his
earlier services rendered in the College of Arunachal Pradesh,
where he had joined the College on 22.08.1995.
5. The provisions contained under Article 5.3.9 of
the Statute of the Career Advancement Scheme clearly lays
down that promotion from Reader to Professor is a personal
promotion and it is not against a sanctioned post. Further Clause
7.1.0 says that when a teacher is promoted under the said
Statute, the post held by him/her shall be upgraded with effect
from the date of his/her promotion till the incumbent continues
to hold the post but shall be converted into the basic grade post
in the event of the incumbent's appointment to a higher post or
when the post falls vacant due to any eventualities.
6. Adverting the aforenoted background of the case,
learned Senior Advocate Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava urged that for
scheme of rotation of Headship in the Department of
Universities/College of the Universities, the concerned
authorities under letter dated 30.06.2008 lays down the
provisions for appointment of Heads in different departments of
Universities which, inter alia, provides that the headship of a
department be rotated only amongst the first four senior most
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
teachers. Despite the aforesaid fact, the respondent no.7 was
appointed as Head of the University, Department of English in a
patently illegal manner ignoring the claim of the petitioner.
7. Learned Senior Advocate taking this Court
through various averments and the annexures appended to the
writ petition submitted that undue favour by the authorities of
the University would be manifest from the fact that while
respondent no.7 was continuing in the capacity of Proctor of the
University, he was made Head of the P.G. Department of
English and further authorized to discharge the duties and
functions of Dean, Students Welfare and Coordinator of the
College Development Council of the University in addition to
the aforementioned responsibilities. Giving responsibilities and
authorizing the respondent no.7 of discharging duties and
functions of all the higher posts to one and only individual is in
complete transgression to the letter dated 24.03.2023 issued by
the Education Department of the State of Bihar addressed to the
Vice-chancellors of all the Universities in the State of Bihar. By
the said letter, it was instructed that one person should be given
the responsibility against only one post as far as possible and
only in the event of unavailability of an eligible person, one
person may be allowed the duties attached to the several
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
administrative posts.
8. The entire facts have been brought to the
knowledge of the authorities of the University by filing a
detailed representation at the hands of the petitioner narrating
the manner in which claim of the petitioner was ignored and the
respondent no.7 has been appointed as a Head of the
Department of English, which clearly cast a doubt on the
legality and validity of service of respondent no.7, besides the
infirmities in the affairs of the University. Despite his detailed
representation, when no action was taken, the petitioner
preferred a representation before the Chancellor of the
Universities, this led to issuance of a show-cause notice under
letter dated 07.12.2024 (Annexure-P/9) for purported use of
unparliamentary words by him against respondent no.7. In the
meanwhile, some physical assault was also made on the
petitioner by some miscreants and this fact has also been
brought to the knowledge of the Vice-chancellor of the
University indicating that the miscreants had threatened him
with dire consequences, if he shall not withdraw the claim of
seniority. The petitioner also submitted his reply to the show-
cause notice dated 07.12.2024 stating in detail the various facts
and circumstances, besides his entitlement and assertion of he
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
being senior to respondent no.7. However, all of a sudden the
impugned order dated 17.02.2025 came to be passed.
9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shrivastava
referring to the impugned order has submitted that besides the
fact the petitioner had neither been afforded any opportunity of
being heard nor was made aware of any Committee having been
constituted or the matter having been referred to the Statutory
Discipline Committee of the University, the same is punitive in
nature and complete disregard to the provisions contained under
the Bihar State Universities Act. It is vehemently contended that
raising a grievance or claiming seniority over respondent no.7 in
no stretch of imagination can be said to be unparliamentary,
moreover, the order of the Vice-chancellor debarring the
petitioner from any other job or responsibility, including the
examination work for the next two years by the order under
impugned is wholly unsustainable in law and blatant abuse of
the power by the authorities concerned. It has also been
contended that there is a provision contained under the Statutes
on Formation of Standing Committees under letter dated
20.12.1986 issued from the Governor's Secretariat, Bihar, Patna
laying down the provisions with respect to constitution of
different committees. Article 2(n) of the said Statutes lays down
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
a stipulation regarding constitution of the Discipline Committee
for teachers. However, in the case at hand no such committee
had been constituted and on the basis of the recommendation
made by the purported committee, the impugned order came to
be passed, which is fit to be quashed and cancelled.
10. To buttress all his submissions, reliance has also
been placed to a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr.
Deo Chandra Choudhary Vs. The L.N. Mithila University,
Darbhanga (C.W.J.C. No. 22145 of 2014).
11. Refuting the aforenoted contention of the
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Samarendra, learned Advocate for the University, has submitted
that once the petitioner has voluntarily accepted the transfer
order and joined on the transferred post, no cause of action
survived and thus any challenge to the impugned order is wholly
misconceived. It is further contended that the petitioner was
served with the show-cause notice for using an unparliamentary
word against the respondent no.7, the reply to the show-cause
filed by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and thus a
committee was constituted to examine the reply of the
petitioner. The petitioner was called upon by the Committee
time and again, but he refused to receive the letter/notice.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
Certain other imputation has been levelled against the petitioner
by the Principal, M.P.S. Science College, Muzaffarpur. After
meticulous examination, the Committee unanimously resolved
to accept the recommendation and suggestion of the Chairman
and authorized the Vice-chancellor to the place of posting of the
petitioner, accordingly, the impugned order came to be passed
on an administrative ground.
12. The petitioner deliberately attempted to tarnish
the image of the University as well as respondent no.7, which is
gross misconduct and is violation of Code of Conduct. So far
the claim of the petitioner regarding inter se seniority is
concerned, the provision of Clause 9.0.0 of the Statute under
which both were promoted as Reader and Professor clarified
this issue. There is no iota of confusion that the Seniority of
Teachers promoted under these statutes shall be determined
from the date of promotion (in a particular rank) but the inter se
seniority of the teachers promoted from the same date shall be
the same as they had on the lower post. After counting of the
past services of both the petitioner and the respondent no.7, it is
manifest that respondent no.7 is much senior to the petitioner.
The seniority of the petitioner viz-a-viz respondent no.7 is a
settled matter for more than last ten years and it was determined
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
after following procedure prescribed by the University and the
Syndicate.
13. Mr. Binodanand Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate representing the respondent no.7 controverting all the
submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in
the matter of transfer once the notification is acted upon,
nothing subsists and the notification of transfer becomes
redundant for all purposes. To support the aforesaid contention,
reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the
case of Mahmood Azam Siddique Vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors., reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 139.
14. Further referring to a decision in the case of
Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras Vs. R.
Perachi & Ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 137, learned Senior
Advocate submits that transfer is an incident of service and one
cannot make a grievance if transfer is made on administrative
grounds, and without attaching any stigma. In the matter of
transfer of Government employee, scope of judicial review is
limited and High Court cannot interfere with order of transfer
lightly since Court cannot substitute their own decisions in the
matter, unless the decision is vitiated by mala fide or infraction
of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
alone can be scrutinized judicially. He would thus submit that
the facts of the case clearly demonstrate that only on the
administrative ground, the transfer order came to be issued;
hence any challenge led by the petitioner in the present writ
petition is wholly unsustainable. The claim of the petitioner for
seniority over the respondent no.7 has no leg to stand for the
simple reason that respondent no.7 was promoted to the post of
Reader and later on Professor much earlier, but these orders
have never been questioned by the petitioner and based upon the
seniority, which led to promotion to the aforenoted post; once
the respondent no.7 has been appointed to the post of Head of
the Department on principle of rotation basis, the same cannot
be questioned. The said appointment is in complete consonance
of Article 1 of the Statutes, which mandates that the Senior most
teachers shall be posted in the department on rotation wise.
15. The writ petition is said to be bad and improper
on account of disjointed cause of action/relief based on
disjointed cause of action and not consequential to the dominant
relief sought for. Primarily the writ petition is filed questioning
the legality of the transfer order, hence the petitioner cannot be
allowed to raise the claim of seniority, as neither it is
consequential relief to the impugned order nor the basis thereof.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
To support the aforesaid contention Mr. Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate for respondent no.7 referred to a Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Dr. Maithili Sharan Vs. State of Bihar
& Ors., reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 668.
16. After having patiently heard the learned Senior
Advocate/ Advocate for the respective parties and on perusal of
the materials available on record, this Court finds that in
substance two issues have been framed for determination in the
present lis; (i) as to whether the impugned order of transfer is
based on administrative ground or it is punitive in nature,
besides mala fide and as such requires interference; (ii) The
another issue for consideration is as to whether the appointment
of respondent no.7 on the post of Head of the University,
Department of English is undertaken by ignoring the claim of
the seniority of the petitioner in transgression to relevant
prescription of the Statutes and the Rules and Regulation
governing the seniority of the teaching employees of the
University.
17. The issue of transfer and posting has been
considered time and again and settled by a catena of decisions.
There is series of decisions, which emphasize and underscored
that the employee does not have any vested right to be posted at
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
a particular place if the provision of transfer is an essential
condition of service. It is entirely upon the competent authority
to decide when or where or at what time a public servant is to be
transferred from the present posting. In Gujarat Electricity
Board Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, reported in AIR 1989
SC 1433, the Court held that transfer of a government servant
appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one
place to the other is an incident of service. No government
servant or employee of Public Undertaking has legal right for
being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to
other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public
administration. The Court thus should not interfere with a
transfer/ posting, which is made in public interest or on
administrative exigencies.
18. In State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal,
reported in AIR 2001 SC 1748, the Apex Court held that an
order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service
conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be
interfered with lightly by a court of law in exercise of its
discretionary jurisdiction unless the court finds that either the
order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer
or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
competence to pass the order. The series of decisions need not
be required to be quoted hereunder to gloss the settled principle
that the assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the
superiors taking into account several factors including
suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of
administration. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the
wisdom of the hierarchical superiors to make the decision unless
the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any
professed norm of principle governing the transfer, which alone
can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable
standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the
necessary expertise for personnel management of all
government departments. This must be left, in pubic interest, to
the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny
indicted. [vide N.K.Singh v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 98].
19. The Courts have been reminded time and again
that in a matter of transfer of a Government employee, the scope
of judicial review is limited and High Court would not interfere
with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final
hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own
decision in the matter of transfer. The aforenoted position has
been reiterated in Airports Authority of India Vs. Rajiv Ratan
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
Pandey & Ors., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 337.
20. Before proceeding further, it would also be
pertinent to recapitulate that the power of transfer cannot be
used as a substitute for inflicting lawful punishment through
purported disciplinary process, if the circumstances indicate that
the transfer order was passed as a punitive action without
following due process, the order will be considered malice in
law. If the authority passing the order is competent to exercise
power over both transfer and disciplinary matters, a composite
order might technically be possible if the transfer is genuinely
for administrative reason and the punishment follows proper
procedure, but the authorities must ensure the transfer order is
not in any disguised penalty bypassing the rules of natural
justice.
21. Now coming to the order impugned dated
17.02.2025 (Annexure-P/14). Bare perusal thereof, it clearly
manifest that the same has been passed on the recommendation
of Statutory Discipline Committee (For Teachers, Officers &
Staffs of the University) in view of the report of three men
committee. The impugned order of transfer, inter alia, further
debarred the petitioner from any other job of responsibility,
including examination work for the next two years with effect
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
from the date of issue of this order.
22. It would be worth observing that when a
statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds,
its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and
cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of
affidavit or otherwise. The Government/authorities must defend
its action on the basis of the order that it has passed, and it
cannot improve its stand by filing subsequent affidavits as laid
down by the Apex Court long back in the case of Commissioner of
Police Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16
followed by Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner,
reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 and further in the case of Dipak
Babaria Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 502.
23. Mere nomenclature of order would not be
sufficient to term that it has been passed on administrative
ground. The Court may lift the veil from the order to see the
intent of the order, if the challenge is based on the reeks of an
action being mala fide and punitive in nature. If the real purpose
of transfer is to penalize an employee for alleged misconduct
without providing an opportunity to be heard, the order is
considered punitive and is liable to be set aside by a court or
Tribunal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
24. The order impugned debarring the petitioner
from any other job of responsibility, including examination
work for the next two years with effect from the date of issue of
this order apparently demonstrate that it is a composite order of
transfer and the punishment. Once the order of transfer is based
upon the recommendation of the Statutory Discipline
Committee, the process for constitution of the committee and
the procedure, which has been followed must be in consonance
with the Statutes/Act. Article 2(b) of the Statute on formation of
Discipline Committee clearly stipulates that the said committee
shall be consisting of Vice-chancellor as the Chairman, the Pro
Vice-chancellor, three members to be nominated by the
Syndicate, one Senior most Teacher against the Dean of faculty,
Proctor and the Registrar, as the Member Secretary. However,
the Committee constituted either the Discipline Committee or
the Committee constituted to examine the reply of the petitioner
does not appear to be in consonance with the prescriptions
provided under the Statute for formation of Committee. If the
Statute has conferred the power to do an act and has laid down
the manner in which that power has to be exercised, it
necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner
than that which has been prescribed. The aforenoted principle
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
adopted in Taylor Vs. Taylor [(1875)LR 1 ChD 426] is well
recognized and explained in series of decision.
25. The contention of the learned Advocate for the
respondent University as well as learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent no.7 that in the matter of
transfer once notification is acted upon nothing subsists and the
notification of transfer become redundant for all purposes. In the
opinion of this Court would not be applicable in the present
case, once the order is found to be not mere a transfer under
administrative ground, rather punitive in nature actuated with
malice and in transgression to the Statute. It is well settled that
no principle of estoppel override the law. An order suffers from
the vice of transgression of statutory prescriptions or the
principle of rule of law or actuated with malice amenable to writ
jurisdiction, hence the objection raised by the University and the
private respondent does not find any substance in the facts of
this case.
26. In view of the facts aforenoted, this Court finds
that the impugned order of transfer is per se composite order,
being punitive in nature imposing a harsh punishment without
following the proper disciplinary procedure and thus is hereby
held to be illegal and liable to be set aside. The issue no.(i)
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
answered accordingly.
27. So far the another issue raised in the present
writ petition with regard to inter se seniority of the petitioner
vis-a-vis respondent no.7 and based upon which the claim of
Head of the Department in English is maintained; this Court
finds that the respondent no.7 though has admitted in the
services of the University w.e.f. 25.08.2003, but nonetheless he
has been duly promoted to the rank of University Professor
under Career Advancement Scheme vide University Memo
No.B/148 dated 26.03.2017 as per the provisions of the Statute
assented to by the learned Chancellor w.e.f. from 20.08.2012,
but the same has never been questioned. The Statute in question
warranting scheme of rotation of Headship in the department be
rotated only amongst the first four senior most teachers
(Professor/Reader) as the case may be of the subject concerned
and only in case where there is no Professor, the Headship
should be rotated amongst four senior most teachers and/or less
than four. Be that as it may since the order of promotion of
respondent no.7 as a Professor has never been questioned and
the Court is also persuaded with the argument of learned Senior
Advocate for respondent no.7 that it is disjointed cause of action
and is not consequential to the dominant relief sought for in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
writ petition. This Court observed and declares that other relief
to be beyond the frame of the present writ petition and reiterates
the finding of the Bench decision rendered in the case of
Maithili Sharan (supra), hence no adjudication is required on
the second issue. However, the petitioner will be entitled to raise
this issue, if so warrant.
28. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
17.02.2025 is hereby set aside.
29. Consequent upon setting aside the impugned
order, the petitioner shall be restored to its earlier position
forthwith. However, this order would not preclude the
concerned respondents to act in accordance with law, if the facts
and circumstances still warrants.
30. The writ petition is allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
31. The parties shall bear their own costs.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.12.2025
Transmission Date NA
