Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar Through The ... vs Hriday Narayan Bharti on 14 February, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.154 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2354 of 2025
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna, Bihar.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna, Bihar.
4. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Sitamarhi, District-
Sitamarhi.
6. The Block Teacher Employment / Appointment Committee, Nanpur, Block-
Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi, through its Member Secretary - cum- Block
Development Officer, Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi.
7. The Block Teacher Employment / Appointment Committee, Runni Saidpur,
Block - Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi, through its Member Secretary -
cum- Block Development Officer, Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
8. The Block Teacher Employment / Appointment Committee, Parihar, Block -
Parihar, District- Sitamarhi, through its Member Secretary - cum- Block
Development Officer, Parihar, District- Sitamarhi.
9. The Block Teacher Employment / Appointment Committee, Bathnaha,
Block - Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi, through its Member Secretary - cum-
Block Development Officer, Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
10. The Chairman, Block Teacher Employment / Appointment Committee -
cum- Block Pramukh (Panchayat Samiti), Nanpur, Block - Nanpur, District-
Sitamarhi.
11. The Chairman, Block Teacher Employment / Appointment Committee -
cum- Block Pramukh (Panchayat Samiti), Runni Saidpur, Block - Runni
Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
12. The Chairman, Block Teacher Employment / Appointment Committee -
cum- Block Pramukh (Panchayat Samiti), Parihar, Block- Parihar, District-
Sitamarhi.
13. The Chairman, Block Teacher Employment / Appointment Committee -
cum- Block Pramukh (Panchayat Samiti), Bathnaha, Block - Bathnaha,
District - Sitamarhi.
14. The Member Secretary, Block Teacher Employment / Appointment
Committee - cum- Block Pramukh (Panchayat Samiti), Nanpur, Block -
Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi.
15. The Member Secretary, Block Teacher Employment / Appointment
Committee - cum- Block Pramukh (Panchayat Samiti), Runni Saidpur,
Block - Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
16. The Member Secretary, Block Teacher Employment / Appointment
Patna High Court L.P.A No.154 of 2025 dt.14-02-2025
2/8
Committee - cum- Block Pramukh (Panchayat Samiti), Parihar, Block -
Parihar, District- Sitamarhi.
17. The Member Secretary, Block Teacher Employment / Appointment
Committee - cum- Block Pramukh (Panchayat Samiti), Bathnaha, Block -
Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
18. The Block Education Officer, Nanpur , Block - Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi.
19. The Block Education Officer, Runni Saidpur, Block - Runni Saidpur,
District- Sitamarhi.
20. The Block Education Officer, Parihar, Block - Parihar, District- Sitamarhi.
21. The Block Education Officer, Bathnaha, Block - Bathnaha, District-
Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Hriday Narayan Bharti Son of Ram Kalewar Sah, Resident of Village -
Samhauli, P.O. - Vishanpur, P.S. - Pupri, District- Sitamarhi.
2. Rinki Kumari D/o Ashok Jha, W/o Chandan Kumar Mishra, Resident of
Village - Basant, P.O. - Kharka, P.S. -Jalley, District- Darbhanga.
3. Rashmi Riva D/o Ram nandan Singh, W/o Nishant Shekhar, Resident of
Mohalla - Rasulpur Zilani, Lenin Chowk Near - Honda Show room P.S. -
Kazi Mohammadpur District- Muzaffarpur.
4. Hemant Kumar S/o Mahendra Kumar, Resident of Village - Malahi, P.S. -
Sursand, District- Sitamarhi.
5. Nidhi Singh D/o Arun Kumar Singh, Resident of Madhesara, P.O. -
Madhesara, P.S. - Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K.P. Yadav, GP-11
Mr. Santosh Chandra Bhaskar AC to GP-11
Mr.Kritya Nand Jha ( Ac To Gp 11)
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 14-02-2025
The defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter is
hereby ignored.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.154 of 2025 dt.14-02-2025
2. Under extremely urgent circumstances, a
mention was made in the morning by the learned
Advocate General for posting L.P.A No. 154 of 2025
which was filed only today in the Registry.
3. While hearing a writ petition captioned CWJC
No. 2354 of 2025, which was posted before the learned
Single Judge on the first day on 13.02.2025, an order
was passed asking the counsel for the State to inform and
request Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar to be present in the
Court on the same day in the second half of the Court
working hours.
4. The Court was informed that because of some
miscommunication and absence of any written order on
record, such a direction could not be complied with.
5.The learned Single Judge held it to be
contumacious enough to declare it to be contempt of
Court and apart from referring to the merits of the case,
directed the Additional Chief Secretary to appear before
Patna High Court L.P.A No.154 of 2025 dt.14-02-2025
the Court on 14.02.2025 at 2:15 PM without fail.
6. Expressing strong reservations against such an
order having been passed on the first day of the hearing
of the case, notwithstanding the merits of the case, it was
urged before us that there is a process delineated by way
of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in terms of the
judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Association of Retired
Supreme Court and High Court Judges at
Allahabad & Ors. 2024 (2) BLJ 106 SC, wherein it
has been enumerated as to under what circumstances,
personal presence of the Officers of Government could be
asked for.
7. The SOP clearly identifies three different types of
adjudication namely, (i) evidence based adjudication; (ii)
summary proceedings and (iii) non-adversarial
proceedings. While hearing non-adversarial proceedings,
the SOP illustrates, a Court might require presence
Government official to understand any complex policy or
Patna High Court L.P.A No.154 of 2025 dt.14-02-2025
technical issue which the Law Officers of the Government
would not be able to address. Similarly in evidence based
adjudication involving evidence such as documents or oral
statements wherein also a Government official would be
required to be physically present for testimony or to
present relevant documents and the governing statute
with respect to the procedure would be the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8. Other than in cases falling under these two
categories, the issues could always be addressed through
affidavits and other documents, thus obviating the
necessity of any physical presence of the officers.
9.The SOP does not preclude a Court from calling
the officer, where it is prima facie satisfied that specific
information is not being provided or is being intentionally
withheld or if correct position is being suppressed or is
being misrepresented.
10. A proscription, therefore, has been sounded
that the Courts should not direct the presence of officials
Patna High Court L.P.A No.154 of 2025 dt.14-02-2025
solely because the officials stance is different from the
Court's view. In such cases, if the matter could be
resolved based on existing records, it should be decided
on merits accordingly.
11. Even with respect to calling for the personal
presence of the officer, certain procedure has been
delineated namely that the Court should allow, as a first
option, the officer to appear before it through video
conferencing.
12. Whenever a personal presence of an official is
directed, reason should be recorded as to why such
presence is required.
13. Due notice for any personal appearance giving
sufficient time for such appearance must be served in
advance to the official which would enable him to come
prepared and render assistance to the Court for proper
adjudication of the matter for which he is summoned.
14. Other procedures also have been laid down.
15. It appears from the order dated 13.02.2025
Patna High Court L.P.A No.154 of 2025 dt.14-02-2025
that the matter was taken up in the first half of the Court
proceedings and the officer concerned was asked to
appear in the second half, which directions, for some
reason or the other, could not be complied with.
16. We consider it to be completely unnecessary
to hold non-appearance of the officer in the second half of
the Court proceedings to be contemptuous in any manner
whatsoever. Nonetheless, we are of the view that the
learned Single Judge ought to have given some time to
the officer by fixing another date, which might not be in
distant future but time sufficient enough for the officer to
prepare himself on the facts of the case for his personal
appearance before the Court.
17. Even otherwise, we do not find any urgency in
the matter or the necessity of the officer being summoned
with such urgent dispatch.
18. However, without discussing the merits of the
case and without unnecessarily commenting upon the
contents of the order appealed against, we request the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.154 of 2025 dt.14-02-2025
learned Single Judge to fix a date for appearance,
sometimes later but only after being satisfied that the
presence of the officer would be required and the
averments made in the affidavit filed on his behalf would
not be sufficient.
19. We further request the learned Single Judge
not to insist for the presence of the officer on 14.02.2025
as directed by order dated 13.02.2025.
20. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
sunilkumar/-
Shiv
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 14.02.2025
Transmission Date N/A
