[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Abhay Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 19 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24210 of 2013
======================================================
Abhay Kumar Son Of Late Arjun Singh Resident Of Village And Post-
Nandnama, P.S.- Ramgarh Chowk, Dist.- Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt.
Of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, Bihar Education Project, Council State Level Office, Siksha
Bhawan, Rastra Bhasa Parishad, Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna- 4
4. The District Education Officer, Lakhisarai
5. The District Program Officer, Primary Education And Sarva Siksha
Abhiyan, Lakhisarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Praveen Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rishiraj Sinha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENTDate : 19-02-2026
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following relief(s):
"I. For, issuance of a Writ, in
the nature of Certiorari, to Quash the
Office Order contained in Memo No. 6835
dt. 10.10.2013, issued under the
signature of Respondent, State Project
Director, whereby and whereunder, all
appointments, made on 22.2.2013 and
thereafter has been cancelled, with
immediate effect(Annexure-2-).
II. Further be pleased to
quash the consequent letter No. 1805 dt.
Patna High Court CWJC No.24210 of 2013 dt.19-02-2026
2/5
17.10.2013
, issued under the signature
of respondent District Program, Officer,
Lakhisarai, whereby and whereunder, the
petitioner has been informed that, his
services/employment, cancelled in the
light of order contained in annexure-1-.
Simultaneously a clarification was also
sought for from the petitioner to the
aforesaid effect(annexure-3).
III. Further be pleased to
direct the respondents, to pay
honorarium to the petitioner, for which he
performed, the duty assigned to him."
2. At the very outset, the Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
submits that the issue involved in the present writ
petition is no longer res integra. It is contended
that the issue stands squarely covered by the
order dated 17.02.2014 passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 3561 of 2014
(Gopal Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.),
wherein an identical issue was considered and
adjudicated. The Learned counsel, therefore,
submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment the
present writ petition may also be disposed of.
Patna High Court CWJC No.24210 of 2013 dt.19-02-2026
3. In Gopal Kumar (supra) this Court
has held as follows:
"2. The present petition has
been filed for quashing of the office order
dated 10.10.2013 issued by the State
Project Director, Bihar Education Project
Council by which all the appointments
made in Kasturba Gandhi Balika
Residential School, Kaindi, Halsi Block,
District Lakhisarai in the post of Peon
appointed on or after 22.02.2013 have
been cancelled in view of the reservation
policy not having been followed in the
matter of selection. The petitioner has
also prayed for quashing of the order
dated 17.10.2013 by which, in view of the
aforesaid order dated 10.10.2013, his
appointment made as Peon for a period of
one year on contract basis came to be
terminated.
3. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that on the face of it
the cancellation of his appointment is
illegal considering that the order dated
17.10.2013 not only cancels his
appointment, but in the same breath also
calls for a show cause. It is therefore,
submitted that the order of cancellation
violates the principles of natural justice.
Patna High Court CWJC No.24210 of 2013 dt.19-02-2026
4. Learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 2 submits that no fault
can be found with the termination of the
petitioner's appointment which, to begin
with, on contract basis. In view of the
office order dated 10.10.2013 it is clear
that all such appointments were contrary
to Rules in not following the reservation
policy which had thus been cancelled in
principle, and it is not a case where the
petitioner has been singled out for
termination. It is further submitted that
the show cause called for was in fact
superfluous and redundant. It is further
pointed out that the matter has also been
considered in the case of similarly
situated persons Lakshmi Kumari and
another in CWJC No. 2244 of 2014
wherein this Court has refused to
interfere in the matter.
5. In the above circumstances,
this Court is of the view that the
petitioner has not made out any case for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
6. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that payment has not
been made for the part of the period for
which he has worked. This Court makes
Patna High Court CWJC No.24210 of 2013 dt.19-02-2026
no observation in that regard. If so
advised, the petitioner is always at liberty
to approach the authorities for redressal
of his grievances.
7. The writ petition stands
dismissed."
4. Having regard to the submissions
made by the parties, the present writ petition
stands dismissed in terms of the aforesaid order
passed in Gopal Kumar (supra).
5. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date
