[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Preeti Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 30 August, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11252 of 2025
======================================================
1. Preeti Kumari W/o- Nikesh Kumar, Resident of- Flat No. 104., Keshav-
Malti Enclave, Police Colony, P.O- Ashiyana Nagar, PS- Rajeev Nagar,
Patna-800025.
2. Khushboo Kumari D/o- Late Ram Suresh Rai, Resident of Vill-
Raghurampur, PO- Chandmari, PS- Shapur, Danapur Cant, Patna, Pin-
801503.
3. Pratibha D/o Shashi Bhushan Sharma, Resident of Vill- Bisautha, PO-
Dhanaura, PS- Katra, Distt- Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Pin- 843321.
4. Rekha Kumari D/o- Rambali Thakur, Resident of Vill- Korbabha, PO-
Laguniya Suryakanth, PS and Distt- Samastipur, Bihar, Pin- 848101.
5. Premlata Kumari D/o Siyaram Pd. Singh, Resident of Chicknauta M G
Nagar, Ward No. 31,. PO-Hajipur, PS- Hajipur City, Distt- Vaishali, Bihar,
Pin- 844101.
6. Jagriti Kumari D/o Rajesh Kumar Singh, Resident of Ramayan Lane, New
Jaganpura Road, PO- Jaganpura, PS- Ramkrishna Nagar, Patna- 800027.
7. Nitu Kumari D/o Ram Uchit Rai, Resident of Indrapuri Road No. 03(A),
PO- Keshari Nagar, PS- Patliputra, Patna- 800024.
8. Jai Prakash Narayan S/o Mahendra Rai, Resident of Muhalla- Mision
Motihari, PO- Pataura, PS- Mufassil Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar, Pin-
845402.
9. Amrita Chandra D/O Akhauri Umesh Chandra Sinha, resident of hope
mahendra apartment, flat no-c/209, Munna Chak, P.S.-Kankarbagh Patna
city, Patna, pin-800020.
10. Masudan Kumar S/o Chandi Paswan, Resident of Vill- Bhikhari ghat, PO-
Budhwa, PS- Alauli, Distt- Khagaria, Pin- 848203.
11. Santosh Kumar S/o Mahendra Prasad Yadav, Resident of Vill and PO-
Belahiya, PS- Darpa, Distt- East Champaran, Bihar, Pin- 845301.
12. Ritu Rani D/o Sukhdeo Pd. Keshari, Resident of Vill and PO- Baidrabad,
PS- Arwal, Distt- Arwal, Bihar, Pin- 804402.
13. Nirupama Kumari D/o- Subhash Choudhary, Resident of Vill, PO, PS and
Buxar, Bihar, Pin-802101.
14. Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Bhagyanarayan Pd. Jaiswal, Resident of Vill, PO
and PS- Bhopatpur, Distt- East Champaran, Bihar, Pin- 845432.
15. Niraj Kumar S/o Sheo Kumar Singh, Resident of Vill- Karhara, PO- Sehra,
PS- Sigori, Distt- Patna, Bihar, Pin- 801110.
16. Md. Kalim Ansari S/o Md. Kaimuddin Ansari, Resident of Vill- Shivpur,
PO- Birpur, PS- Shahpur, Distt- Bhojpur, Bihar, Pin- 802165.
17. Kumari Anita Sharma D/o Madan Sharma, Resident of Vill, PO and PS-
Mohania, Distt- Kaimur, Bihar, Pin- 821109.
18. Anita Kumari D/o Nirmal Pd. Gupta, Resident of Vill- Punpun Bazar, PO
and PS- Punpun, Distt- Patna, Bihar, Pin -804453.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
2/48
19. Amrita Kumari D/o Parasnath, Resident of Vill- Simli Chhoti Mandir main
road, PS- Patna City, Distt- Patna, Bihar. Pin- 800008.
20. Sanjeev Kumar S/o late Ashok Kumar Gupta, Resident of Vill-Janarh, PS-
Aurai, Distt- Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Pin-843317.
21. Amarkant Bhagat S/o Mahant Bhagar, Resident of Vill- Lakhanpur, PO-
Angoan, PS- Katra, Distt- Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Pin- 843360.
22. Md. Aftab Firoz S/o Md. Firoz Alam, Resident of Vill- Mahisakol, PO-
Bansbari, PS and Distt- Araria, Bihar, Pin- 854311.
23. Sudha Roy D/o Shilanath Roy, Resident of Vill and PS- Rahimapur, PS-
Bidupur, Distt- Vaishali, Bihar, Pin- 844502.
24. Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Kumar S/o Pradip Singh, Resident of Vill-
Rampur, PO- Rampur Brahmpurdas, PS- Rajapakar, Distt- Vaishali, Bihar,
Pin- 844504.
25. Manoj Kumar S/o Harendra Singh, Residing at- Village Gaya Ghat, Post
Office-Asha Parki, District- Buxar, PIN- 802135.
26. Susri Madhuri D/o- Rajendra Prasad Sinha, Residing at Jamsari P.O, P.S.-
Bind Block Bind, District - Nalanda, Pin- 803107
27. Priyanka Kumari D/o Sachidanand Tiwari, Residing at ward No. 8 (Saraiya
Khurda), matiyariya, Post- makhuya, Manikpur, East Champaran, Manikpur,
Bihar- 845437.
28. Ranju Kumari D/o- Hira Prasad, Residing at Mansur Nagar, P.O. - Sohsaray,
P.S. - Sohsaray, District - Nalanda, Pin - 803118.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna through its Secretary.
4. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11508 of 2025
======================================================
1. Ram Naresh Singh S/o Chathu Singh @ Chhathu Singh, Resident of Village-
Harpur Hari, P.O. - Shahwajpur Puraina, P.S.- Harlochanpur Suky, Dist. -
Vaishali (Bihar).
2. Pankaj Kumar, S/o - Chandeshwar Ram, Resident of Village- Mahua Singh
Rae, P.O.- Mahua, P.S.- Mahua, Dist. - Vaishali (Bihar).
3. Shyam Sundar Prasad Dhiraj, S/o Bhikhar Yadav, Resident of village- Dal
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
3/48
Bigha, P.O.- Latta, P.S.- Pauthu, Dist.- Aurangabad (Bihar).
4. Deepak Kumar Bharti, S/o Lalan Kumar Singh, Resident of Mohalla-
Punjabi Colony, Gali No.- 01, Dharampur, Ward No. 26, P.O. - Samastipur,
P.S.- Samastipur Town, Dist. - Samastipur (Bihar).
5. Hiralal Sah Gond, S/o - Dhaneshwar Sah, Resident of Village- Amnaura,
P.O. - Tiyay, P.S. - Ander, Dist. - Siwan (Bihar).
6. Hemlata Kumari Gupta, D/o- Late Prahalad Prasad, W/o- Subhash Kumar,
Resident of -Radhika Sadan, P.G.S More Raj Nagar, Khagaul Road, Near
Electric Office, P.O.- Danapur Cantt., P.S.- Danapur, Dist. - Patna (Bihar).
7. Sweety Kumari, D/o Late Uday Narayan Prasad, W/o- Late Anil Kumar
Gupta, Resident of Village- Nokha, Ward No. - 10, Sarvoday Nagar, P.O.-
Nokha, P.S. - Nokha, Dist.- Rohtas at Sasaram (Bihar).
8. Baby Kumari, D/o- Manna Saw, W/o- Arun Kumar Gupta, Resident of
Mohalla- Malgodam, Professor Colony, Nawada, P.O.- Nawada, P.S. -
Nawada, Dist.- Nawada (Bihar).
9. Anand Kumar, S/o - Late Rajendra Roy, Resident of Village- Tajpur Buzurg,
P.O.- Bishanpur Bejha, P.S. - Mahua, Dist.- Vaishali (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12106 of 2025
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar Son of Dukha Thakur, Resident of the village and P.O.-
Ghosaut, P.S.- Sivaipatti in the district of Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Primary
Education, New Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Regional Deputy Director, Primary Education, Muzaffarpur, (Govt. of
Bihar).
4. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.
6. The District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
4/48
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12142 of 2025
======================================================
1. Navendu Sarthy S/o - Devendra Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Ward No.- 15,
Gayatri Mandir, P.O.- Hanumat Nagar, P.S.- Araria, Dist.- Araria (Bihar).
2. Vijay Kumar, S/o Ramadhar Singh, Resident of village- Arvind Nagar,
Sitalpur, P.O. - Arvind Nagar, P.S.- Dariyapur, Dist.- Saran (Bihar).
3. Sangeeta Kumari, W/o Rahul Singh, Resident of 41, Kamla Apartment,
Road No. 10, Nearby Arya Apartment, East Patel Nagar, L.B.S. Nagar, P.O.-
Shastri Nagar, PS.- Shastri Nagar, Dist. - Patna (Bihar).
4. Rani Kumari, W/o Sanjay Kumar Singh, Resident of C/o Capt. B.P. Singh,
Urja Nagar, P.O. - Danapur, P.S.- Danapur, Dist. - Patna (Bihar).
5. Priyanka Kumari, W/o Bhikhar Yadav, R/o Village-Dal Bigha, P.O. Latta,
P.S. Pauthu, District-Aurangabad (Bihar).
6. Chandrakala Kumari, D/o- Laddu Lal Bhagat, Resident of village- Karua
Rupni, P.O. - Chautham, P.S.- Chautham, Dist. - Khagaria (Bihar).
7. Saroj Kumar, S/o- Rajendra Ray, Resident of village- Mohammadpur Dharm
@ Maruanha, P.O.- Katesar, P.S.- Sakra, Dist.- Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
8. Manju Kumari, W/o Binod Kumar, Resident of village- Ramnagar
Chakdara, P.O. - Nilkanthpur, P.S.- Mahua, Dist.- Vaishali (Bihar).
9. Tanya Suman, W/o Ranjeet Kumar Verma, Resident of Krishna Kunj Near
Tapovan School, Maurya Vihar, Transport Nagar Kumhrar, P.O. -
Bahadurpur, P.S.- Agamkuan, Dist. - Patna (Bihar).
10. Rani Kumari, W/o- Saroj Kumar, Resident of Village- Rajapakar, P.O -
Rajapakar, P.S.- Sakra, Dist.- Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
11. Rajesh Paswan, S/o- Satyanarayan Paswan, Resident of Ward No.- 4,
Govindpur Bela, P.O.- Baligoun, P.S.- Govindpur Bela, Dist. - Vaishali
(Bihar)
12. Rajesh Kumar Ranjan, S/o Sakaldip Paswan, Resident of Mohalla- Prabhat
Colony, P.O. - Line Bazar Purnia, P.S.- K. Hat, Dist. - Purnia, (Bihar).
13. Rajesh Paswan, S/o- Singheshwar Paswan, Resident of Mohalla- Naya Tola,
Rambagh, P.O. - Purnia, P.S. - Sadar Thana Purnia, Dist. - Purnia (Bihar).
14. Preeti Kumari, D/o Jagdish Prasad, Resident of Village- Rajpur, P.O.-
Rajpur, P.S.- Rajpur, Dist. - Rohtas (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
5/48
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12213 of 2025
======================================================
1. Sarita Kumari W/o- Pankaj Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Kanausi,
Begusarai, P.O.- Dunahi, P.S.- Garhpura, District - Begusarai, Bihar.
2. Sanjeev Kumar, S/o- Ganesh Prasad Mukhiya, Residing at Mohalla- Ward
No.- 12, Machhara Kachari, Tola Kabachua, Machhara, Khagaria, P.O.-
Alauli, P.S.- Bahadurpur, District- Khagaria, Bihar.
3. Bambam Kumar Jha, S/o- Rajendra Jha, Resident at 44, Sansarpur Khagaria,
P.O.- Amni, P.S.- Mansi, District- Khagaria, Bihar.
4. Shabnam Ara Ansari, W/o- Md. Idrish Ansari, Resident of Mohalla, Mehadi
Nagar, Bankat, VTC Baruraj, P.O.- Baruraj, P.S.- Baruraj, District-
Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
5. Savita Kumari, W/o- Sanjeev Kumar, Resident at Ward No.- 12, Machhara
Kachari, Tola Kabachua, Machhara, Khagaria, P.O.- Alauli. P.S.- Alauli,
District- Khagaria, Bihar.
6. Rashmi Singh, W/o- Satyendra Kumar, Resident of Opposite Indira Nagar,
Road No.- 3, Vishnupuri Niwas, South Postal Park, P.O.- Patna G.P.O., P.S.-
Kankarbagh Police Station, District - Patna, Bihar.
7. Vandita, W/o- Shivarshai Thakur Mukesh, Resident of House No.- 47, V.C.
Gali, Mithanpura, Mushahri, P.O. Ramna, P.S.- Mushari Police Station,
District - Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
8. Priti Kumari, D/o- Arun Kumar Singh, Resident of Ward no.- 10, Pagra,
Kesariya Police Station P.S.- Dalsinghsarai, Pagra, District - Samastipur,
Bihar.
9. Meera Kumari, W/o- Umesh Kumar Ram, Resident of- Ward no.- 4, Barma,
P.O.- Berma, P.S.- Jhanjharpur, District - Madhubani, Bihar.
10. Khushboo Kumari, D/o- Ramanand Gupta Resident of Village- Falka, P.O.-
Falka, P.S.- Falka, Katihar, District- Katihar, Bihar.
11. Aashiyana Perween, W/o- Md. Shamsher, Resident of Village- Karichak,
Ward No.- 12, P.O.- Chhapki, P.S.- Virpur, District- Begusarai, Bihar.
12. Swati Kumari, D/O Awadh Bihari Singh, Resident of Village Bajitpur, P.O. -
Jehanabad, P.S.- Makhdumpur, Bihar.
13. Nawal Kishor Prasad, S/O Ramayodhya Prasad, Resident of Village Siswa
Maldahiya, P.O.- Siswa Bazar, P.S.- Pahadpur, District - East Champaran,
Bihar.
14. Daulat Ali, S/O Abdul Khalique, Resident of Village Manglapur, Kalyanpur,
P.O.- Kalyanpur, P.S. - Kalyanpur, District - East Champaran, Bihar.
15. Zeba Kousar @ Ziba Kousar W/O Md. Fahim Uddin Ansari, Resident of
Village- Rigori, Paligan, P.O. -Sigori, P.S.- Sigori District - Patna, Bihar.
16. Ranjita Kumari, W/O Kanhaiya Tiwary, Resident of Village Chandwa,
Bampali P.O - Chandwa, Bampali, P.S. - Nawada, District - Bhojpur, Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
6/48
17. Marya Saman, W/O Kamran Khan, Resident of Village Moazzamchak,
Habibpur, Mozamchak, P.O - Habibpur, P.S.- Habibpur, District - Bhagalpur,
Bihar.
18. Dipti Kumari, W/O Rajeev Kumar Chaudhary, Resident of Marahiya, P.O.-
Mira Mushehri, P.S.- Chapra Muffsil, District - Saran, Bihar.
19. Anamika, D/O Ramanand Singh, Resident of - 45, Ward - 02, Near
Maiasthan, Vill.- Purushottampur, Parkhotimpur, P.O - A. Purushotampur,
P.S. - Mithunpura, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
20. Anita Sinha, W/O- Binod Kumar Sinha, Resident of - House No.- 294B,
Ankit Anjali Kunj, Maharaj Colony, Pankha Toli Musahri, Ramna, P.O.
Ramna, P.S - Mithunpura, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
21. Rumana Abbas, D/O - Syed Ali Abbas, Resident of Khalasi Tola, Near Uma
Petrol Pump, Old City Court, Patna City, P.O.- Gulzarbagh, P.S.- Paijawa,
Patna, Bihar.
22. Rajesh Kumar Keshri, S/O - Late Kedar Prasad Keshri, Resident of - Near
Station Road, Nagar Panchayat Bakhri, Ward No. -10, Bakhri, P.O.- B.
Bazar, P.S.- Bakhri, District - Begusarai, Bihar.
23. Taruna Kumari, W/O Rabindra Kumar, Resident of Kharkhra, Kosra,
Sheikhpura, P.O- Jiyan Bigah, P.S.- Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura, Bihar.
24. Suman Gupta, D/O Salik Prasad, Resident of Village- Satowantti, Chaprang,
P.O Chaprang Ewati, P.S- Akhini, District - Kaimur, Bihar.
25. Khushboo Priya, W/O Shashi Shekhar Mishra, Resident of Kharahiya Basti,
Ward no.- 10, P.O.- Araria Bairgachhi, P.S. - Araria MDEG, District-Araria,
Bihar.
26. Anita Kumari, W/O Mithlesh Ram, Resident of Ward No.- 1, Mainapatti,
VTC Maheshwara, P.S- Khajauli, P.O- Maheshwara, District- Madhubani,
Bihar.
27. Gomati Kumari, W/O Manoj Kumar Jha, Resident of Village Bhit
Bhagwanpur, P.O.- Bhit Bhagwanpur, P.S. - Madhepur, District- Madhubani,
Bihar.
28. Kumari Shikha, W/O Randhir Kumar, Resident of Village Paunihasanpur,
P.O. - Abul Hasanpur, P.S.-Vaishali, District - Vaishali, Bihar.
29. Amrita Kumari, W/O Lalit Kumar Mishra, Resident of Mohalla Ward - 01,
Gram - Sugaon Daxini, P.O.- Sugaon, Sugauli, P.S. - Barauli, District - East
Champaran, Bihar.
30. Pammi Kumari, W/O Manish Kumar Priyadarshi, Resident of Village-
Tiwari Tola Bangara, P.O - Fulwariya, Sugaoli, P.S. - Barauli, District - East
Champaran, Sugaoli, Bihar.
31. Raju Kumar, S/O Umesh Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Birpur Purbi, Ward
No. - 10, Begusarai, P.O.- Birpur, P.S. - Birpur, District - Begusarai, Bihar.
32. Santwana Bharti, W/O Raju Kumar, Resident of Mohalla- Birpur, Purbi,
Ward No. 10, P.O.- Birpur, P.S- Birpur, District - Begusarai, Bihar.
33. Sujeet Kumar Shandily, S/O Satish Thakur, Resident of Mohalla- Ward No.-
41, Bari Eghu, VTC Mohan Eghu, P.O- Mohanaigh, P.S- Matihani District-
Begusarai, Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
7/48
34. Amrandra Kumar Sinha, S/O Narendra Kumar Sinha, Resident of Chanakya
Nagar, Mahmadpur, Ward No.- 38, Bishunpur, P.O- Badlapura, P.S-
Matihani, District- Begusarai, Bihar.
35. Krishna Ballabh Sahay, S/O Rambilash Prasad, Resident of Village- Buxar,
P.O - Rukundi Jhikatia, P.S. - Goh, District - Aurangabad, Bihar.
36. Dhiraj Kumar, S/O Ram Bharosh Ram, Resident of Village - Patjilwa, P.O-
Chiraia, P.S- Shikharganj, District- East Champaran, Bihar.
37. Pramod Kumar, S/O Ashok Kumar, Resident of Mohalla- Purani Bajar, P.O.-
Masaurhi, P.S- Masaurhi, District - Patna, Bihar.
38. Mani Bhushan, S/O Mahendra Ray, Resident of Mohalla - Ward No.- 12,
Bheriyahi, Chiraia, P.O- Patjilva, P.S - Chiraia, District - East Champaran,
Bihar.
39. Vinita Kumari, D/O Nand Kishore Prasad, Resident of Ramkrishna Prasad
Path, Kadamkuan, P.O.- Kadamkuan- P.S. -Gandhi Nagar, District - Patna,
Bihar.
40. Sonam, W/O Arjun Kumar, Resident of Village- Kasba Aahar, P.O. - Tajpur,
P.S.- Tajpur Samastipur, Bihar.
41. Renu Bala, W/O Uma Shankar Sainy, Resident of V/585 Kailash Bhawan,
Bidyapuri Colony, Kankarbagh, P.O.- Bankipur, P.S. - Gopalpur, District -
Patna, Bihar.
42. Vishwanath Kumar, S/O Shankar Dayal Singh, Resident of Mohalla Ward
No.- 11, Muza, P.O.- Patrahia, P.S. - Patrahia, District - Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
43. Nikhilesh Anand, S/O Randhir Parsad Singh, Resident of Village - Naki,
Lohchi, P.O. - Munger Head P.S. - Bariyarpur, District - Munger, Bihar.
44. Ajeet Kumar, S/O Rajshwor Shah, Resident of Mohalla - Ward No.- 7,
Chuhari, P.O. - Chuhari, P.S.- Chuhari, District - West Champaran, Bihar.
45. Md. Reyazul Ansari, S/O Md. Fazlur Rahman Ansari, Resident of Village
Langri, P.O.- Langri, P.S.- Langri, District - Paschim Champaran, Bihar.
46. Shaesta Tabassum, W/O Md. Irfan Waris, Resident of Village Paliganj, P.O.-
Paliganj, P.S.- Paliganj, Patna, Bihar.
47. Uma Shankar Gyani, S/O Brijendra Prasad Sinha, Resident of Village -
Selhauri, P.O.- Belhauri, P.S.- Belhauri, District Patna, Bihar.
48. Jay Prakash Yadav, S/O Bhikhari Yadav, Resident of Village- Nenuan, P.O.
Nenuan, P.S.- Nenuan, Buxar, Bihar.
49. Shitendra Sharma, S/O Shambhu Sharan Sharma, Resident of Mohalla -
Ward no.- 11, Ninga, P.O. Ninga, P.S.- Ninga, District - Begusarai, Bihar.
50. Sachin Kumar, S/O Shivnandan Choudhary, Resident of Ward no.- 5, VTC
Ninga, P.O - Ninga, P.S.- Barauni, District - Begusarai, Bihar.
51. Soni Kumari, W/O Manoj Kumar Thakur, Resident of Shiv Mandir, P.O -
Ninga, P.S.- Ninga, District - Begusarai, Bihar.
52. Kalpana Kumari, W/O Sanjay Kumar, Resident of Village- Maida,
Babhangawan, Begusarai, M. Babhangama, P.O.- Babhangawan, P.S.-
Babhangawan, District - Begusarai, Bihar.
53. Archana Kusum, W/O Lalendra Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
8/48
Fatehpur, P.O.- Raghopur, P.S.- Raghopur, District - Vaishali, Bihar.
54. Kanchan Kumari, W/O Dilip Kumar Singh, Resident of Bagen,
Raghunathpur, Buxar, Bihar, Pin - 802134.
55. Md. Shahnwaz Alam, S/O Md. Jalauddin, Resident of Barsoi Railway
Station, Raghunathpur, VTC- Raghunathpur, P.O. - Barsoighat, Barsoi,
District - Katihar, Bihar, Pin- 854317.
56. Nutan Bala, W/O Ritesh Kumar Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Ward No. 5,
Mehura, P.O.- Mehura P.S.- Mehura, District - West Champaran, Bihar.
57. Anand Milan, S/O Sh. Vijay Shankar Yadav, Resident of Gamharia, P.O.-
Gamharia, P.S.- Gamharia, District - Madhepura, Bihar.
58. Satyendra Kumar, S/O Sh. Lalbabu Chaudhari, P.O.-Sitapar, P.S.- Patilar,
District- West Champaran, Bihar.
59. Shweta Sinha, W/O Sh. Kishor Kumar, Resident of Village- Bhaisasur, P.O.-
Biharsharif, P.S. - Biharsharif, District Nalanda, Bihar.
60. Riti, W/O Sh. Raj Kumar, Resident of Mohalla- Ward No.- 3, Krishna
Nagar, P.O.- Krishna Nagar P.S.- Krishna Nagar, Khagaria, Bihar.
61. Pratosh Ranjan, S/O Chakradhar Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla Ward
No.- 20, Hazipur, P.O.- Hazipur, P.S.- Khagaria, Distrct - Khagaria, Bihar.
62. Sanjay Kumar Mandal, S/O Tetar Mandal, Bhramarpur, Near Old Post
Office, Ward No.- 3, P.O.- Bihpur, P.S.- Bihpur, Bhagalpur, Bihar.
63. Dhiraj Kumar, S/O Balmiki Singh, Resident of Mohalla - Ward No.- 14,
Pansalla, P.O.- Bhairwar, P.S.- Muffasil, Distrct Begusarai, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12219 of 2025
======================================================
1. Dimpal Kumari D/O Birendra Pratap Singh, R/o Village - Pariyari, P.O. -
Mahila, P.S. Kudhani, District - Kaimur.
2. Pratima Kumari D/o Radheshyam Singh, R/o Village Nateyan, P.O. -
Nateyan, P.S. Kudra, District - Kaimur.
3. Kamal Kumar Singh S/o Birendra Kumar Singh R/o Village - Pariyari, P.O. -
Mahila, P.S. Kudhani, District - Kaimur.
4. Kanchan Kumari D/o Sudama Singh, R/o Village and P.O. - Bhabua, Ward
No - 02, P.S. Bhabua, District - Kaimur.
5. Santosh Kumar Singh S/o Bashisth Singh, R/o Village and P.O.- Balia, P.S.-
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
9/48
Amba, District - Aurangabad.
6. Binu Kumari Srivastav D/o Jayendra Prasad, R/o Village and P.O.- Badki
Kharari, P.S.- Kargahar, District - Rohtas.
7. Ram Krishna Singh S/o Sheomangal Singh, R/o Village - Reniya, P.O. -
Doiyan, P.S. - Kargahar, District - Rohtas.
8. Ambedker Prasad S/o Laljee Ram R/o Village- Naugarh, P.O.- Kharenda,
P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District - Kaimur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education (R.D.D.E.), Patna Division,
District - Patna.
6. The District Education Officer, Kaimur, District Bhabua at Kaimur.
7. The District Education Officer, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
8. The District Education Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram, District Rohtas at
Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12262 of 2025
======================================================
1. Ranjit Kumar Son of Late Ram Bilas Das Resident of Chakka, Post Jorja,
Jurja, Block and PS Baheri, Darbhanga 847101 (Bihar).
2. Raja Yadav Son of Late Ram Ashish Yadav, Resident of Bakarganj Abhanda,
P.S.- Laheriasarai, Darbhanga 846001 (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
(Bihar).
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna (Bihar).
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
10/48
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna (Bihar).
5. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna (Bihar).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12306 of 2025
======================================================
1. Ghanshyam Pandey @ Ghanshyam Kumar Pandey S/o Arvind Kumar
Pandey, resident of Ward No. 05,Harpur Rewari, P.O.- Harpur Rewari,
District- Samastipur- 848134.
2. Prem Shankar Singh, S/o Prabhu Mahto, resident of Ward 11, Rampur
Parori, Rampur Parori, Banchauri, Sitamarhi - 843302.
3. Archana Kumari, W/o Pranay Kumar, resident of Bathua Buzurg, Bathua
Buzurg, District- Samastipur, Bihar- 848127.
4. Shashikala Kumari, D/o Chandra Prasad, resident of village- Naubatpur
Lotan, District- Nalanda (Bihar) - 803096
5. Imran Alam, S/o Nazir Ahmad, resident of Haripur Majrahi, Haripur Haripur
Majrahi, District- Madhubani- 847229.
6. Rakesh Kumar, S/o Ramjanam Thakur, resident of Middle School
Mankerawa, Mankerawa, District- East Champaran.
7. Kalpana Kumari, W/o Sunil Kumar Jaiswal, resident of Semapur Bazar,
P.O.- Semapur, P.S. - Barari, District- Katihar, Bihar- 854115.
8. Md. Iliyash Ali, S/o Md. Aslam Ali, Resident of -Village and P.O.-
Madhurapur, P.S. - Bhawanipur (Bihpur), Narayanpur, P.O.- Narayanpur,
District- Bhagalpur - 853203.
9. Asha Devi, W/o Sitaram Ishwar, resident of 00/35, Gudhma, Sarairanjan,
District- Samastipur-848127.
10. Akhileshwar Kumar Thakur, S/o Rameshwar Thakur, resident of village-
Puranidih, District- East Champaran- 845432.
11. Beby Kumari, W/o Munna Ram, resident of Jaisinghpur Barharwa, South
Jaisinghpur, P.O.- Bahrupiya, District- East Champaran - 845437.
12. Md. Javed Sabri, S/o Mustafa Sabri, resident of village- Angarghaat, P.O.
and P.S.- Angarghaat, District- Samastipur (Bihar)- 848236.
13. Rajiv Ranjan, S/o Amarnath Prasad, resident of Ward No. 13, Muriyard,
Darhia Aadhaar, District- Samastipur- 848134.
14. Jibachh Kumar, S/o Bhagbat Ray, resident of Ward no. 08, Sanokhar,
Jagmohra, P.O.- Jagmohra, District- Samastipur - 848207.
15. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Indradeo Prasad, resident of Parawalpur, Badauni,
Sonchri, P.O.- Parwalpur, District- Nalanda.
16. Manish Kumar Chaudhary, S/o Manoj Kumar Chaudhary, resident of
Bakarganj, Darubhatti Chowk, Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga- 846001.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
11/48
17. Ravi Ranjan, S/o Birendra Prasad Singh, resident of Ward No. 06, Near Post
Office, Harpur, District- Khagaria.
18. Ranjeet Kumar Raman, S/o Jai Narayan Mandal, resident of Bhikhnoulia,
Bithaan, Ward No. - 06, Bithan, District- Samastipur- 848207.
19. Sangita Kumari, W/o Rajdeep Kumar Sinha, resident of Thakurganj,
District- Kishanganj- 855108.
20. Ashok Kumar Das, S/o Puran Lal Das, resident of Purandarpur, District-
Kishanganj- 855117.
21. Abhishek Kumar, S/o Birendra Mishra, resident of village- Thatiya, P.O. -
Shio, District- Muzaffarpur - 843119.
22. Shipu Kumari, W/o Suman Kumar Sinha, resident of Ward No. 03, Kabir
Chowk, District- Kishangunj- 855108.
23. Md. Sohail Abbasi, S/o Siddique Abbasi, resident of village and P.O. -
Chandrahiya District- East Champaran- 845429.
24. Bisnath Yadav, S/o Nand Lal Yadav, resident of Ward No. 09, Bithan,
District- Samastipur - 848207.
25. Rina Roy, W/o Mithilesh Kumar Yadav, resident of Pipra, Pipra, Gopalganj,
District- Gopalganj - 841405.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna through its Secretary.
4. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12686 of 2025
======================================================
Neetu Kumari D/o-Gajendra Prasad Gupta, W/o-Santosh Kumar Resident of
Village-Dharohra, P.O.-Khartari, P.S.-Chiraiya, District-East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
12/48
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12711 of 2025
======================================================
1. Bindu Kumari W/o Deepak Kumar, Resident of Vashisthpuri, Near Housing
Colony Arrah, P.O.-Chandwa, P.S.-Nawada, District-Bhojpur (Bihar).
2. Nisha Kumari, W/o Sanjeet Kumar, Resident of Village-Ishakpur, P.O.-
Mahnar, P.S.-Mahnar, District-Vaishali, Bihar.
3. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, S/o Babu Lal Chaudhary, Resident of Village-
Tisiauta, P.O.-Tisiauta, P.S.-Tisiauta, District-Vaishali, Bihar.
4. Kavita Kumari, D/o Arun Kumar Paswan, W/o Suman Kumar, Resident of
Kanti Nagar Panchayat, Ward No. 3, P.O.-Kanti, P.S.-Kanti, District-
Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
5. Khalique Ahmad, S/o Late Nazmul Hoda, Resident of Village-Lohzira, P.O.-
Manjhagarh, P.S.-Manjhagarh, District-Gopalganj, Bihar.
6. Rinku Devi, W/o Manoj Kumar, Resident of Village-Amari, P.O.-Amari,
P.S.-Dharhara, District-Munger, Bihar.
7. Akshybar Prasad, S/o Dinanath Sah, Resident of Village-Mathiya, P.O.-
Mathiya, P.S.-Darauli, District-Siwan, Bihar.
8. Ashok Paswan, S/o Sita Ram Paswan, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Rahimabad, P.S.-NH Bangra, District-Samastipur (Bihar).
9. Abhay Kumar Jha, S/o Ramkrishna Jha, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Jhakhra, P.S.-Sarairanjan, District-Samastipur, Bihar.
10. Anil Kumar Jha, S/o Devendra Jha, Resident of Village and P.O.-Jitwarpur
Kumhira, P.S.-Sarairanjan, District-Samastipur, Bihar.
11. Sarita Kumari, W/o Sanjeev Narayan, Resident of Aadharpur, Ward No. 8,
P.O.-Aadharpur, P.S.-Karpurigram, District-Samastipur, Bihar.
12. Ranjita Kumari, W/o Anup Kumar Gupta, D/o Mahendra Prasad, Resident of
Village-Bishunpur, Navlakha Road, P.O.-Mirzapur Bandawar, P.S.-
Begusarai, District-Begusarai, Bihar.
13. Ram Kumar, S/o Ram Sunder, Resident of Village-Singiyahi, P.O.-Ladora,
P.S.-Kalyanpur, District-Samastipur, Bihar.
14. Kamal Paswan, S/o Kusheshwar Paswan, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Mohammadpur Koari, P.S.-Vaini OP, District-Samastipur, Bihar.
15. Dilip Kumar, S/o Kedar Paswan, Resident of Village-Govindpur, P.O.-
Govindpur, P.S.-Mansur Chak, District-Begusarai, Bihar.
16. Prem Sakhi Kumari, W/o Arvind Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-
Bageshwari, P.O.-Shampur Kachahari, P.S.-Shampur Kachahari, District-
Munger, Bihar.
17. Pankaj Kumar Pankaj, S/o Bhubneshwar Yadav, Resident of Near
Kankarghat Chowk, Lallu Pokhar, P.O.-Munger, P.S.-Kasim Bazar, District-
Munger, Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
13/48
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12743 of 2025
======================================================
1. Pushpa Kumari Wife of Sri Navnit Prakash, Resident of Ward No. 18,
Kamruddinganj, Bihar Sharif, P.O. and P.S. - Bihar Sharif, District- Nalanda.
2. Roopshree, D/o Shiv Shankar Thakur, Resident of Jalalpur, P.O. and P.S.-
Sohsarai, Bihar Sharif, District- Nalanda.
3. Dipinti Kumari, D/o Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Ekangar Dih, P.S. - Ekangar Sarai, District- Nalanda.
4. Lilawati Kumari, W/o Shailendra Kumar, Resident of village- Dharmapur,
P.O. and P.S. - Hilsa, District- Nalanda.
5. Priyanka Kumari Mishra, D/o Satya Narain Mishra, Resident of Village-
Karhari, P.O. - Charan Kala, P.S. - Maali, District- Aurangabad.
6. Mamta Kumari, D/o Krishna Kumar Singh, Resident of village and P.O. -
Amba, P.S.- Rahui, District- Nalanda.
7. Kanaklata Kumari, D/o Arjun Kumar, Resident of Village and P.O. -
Pariauna, P.S. - Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12752 of 2025
======================================================
1. Renu Kumari Wife of Sri Sunil Kumar Resident of Simli Nawabganj,
Madhav Mills, Malsalami, P.O and P.S.- Malsalami, District- Patna.
2. Sunil Sharma Son of Sri Ramakant Sharma Resident of Village-Balaha,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
14/48
P.O.-Balaha, P.S. and District-Darbhanga.
3. Jeetendra Sharma Son of Jageshwar Sharma Resident of 189, Near Maa
Durga, Samaura, P.O. Usri, P.S. and District-Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12862 of 2025
======================================================
Kumari Minu Wife of Gangesh Kumar Resident of Village-Amgola
Khajurbanni, PS Kaji Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12868 of 2025
======================================================
Madhu Rani Wife of Ranjit Kumar Resident of Village-Jagdishpur
Baghnagari, PS-Sakra, District -Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secrtary Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
15/48
Patna.
4. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12964 of 2025
======================================================
Shobha Kumari Wife of Alok Ranjan, Daughter of Harendra Singh, Resident
of Village- Pakari Near Post office, P.O.- Jasouli, P.S.- Baruraj, District-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Education
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Selection Commission, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12980 of 2025
======================================================
Arti Kumari Wife of Yogendra Prasad Sah, Resident of Village -Bakhri
Barahi, P.S.-Rajapakar, District-Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna through its Secretary.
4. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13022 of 2025
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
16/48
Arun Kumar S/o Raghunath Thakur, R/o Village and P.O. Gorgama, P.S.-
Shahpur Patori, District - Samastipur, at present posted as Exclusive Teacher
at Government Primary School Imansaray, Block and P.S.- Shahpur Patori,
District - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, District -
Bhagalpur.
4. The District Education Officer, Banka, District - Banka.
5. The District Education Officer, Samastipur, District -Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13048 of 2025
======================================================
Nirmala Kumari D/o Ram Deo Singh, wife of Dhirendra Kumar Singh,
Resident of village- Kharahana, P.O.- Kukuraha, P.S.- Itarhi, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
4. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11252 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Alok Abhinav, Advocate
Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate
Ms. Diksha Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Shreyanshi Raj, Advocate
Mr. Naman Sherstra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
Ms. Yeritika K. Kashyap, AC to AG
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
17/48
Mr. Navnet Govindam, Advocate
For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Resp. No.6 : Ms. Supriya Kumar, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11508 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Alok Abhinav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
Ms. Yeritika K. Kashyap, AC to AG
Mr. Navnet Govindam, Advocate
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12106 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (02)
Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, AC to GA-2
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12142 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Abhinav, Advocate
Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Diksha Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, GA- 3
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12213 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Abhinav, Advocate
Mr. Naman Shrestra, Advocate
Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Deepankar Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, GA- 3
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12219 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Arinjay Kumar, Advocate
Md. Danish Quamar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
Ms. Yeritika K. Kashyap, AC to AG
Mr. Navnet Govindam, Advocate
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12262 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. M. P. Dixit, Advocate
Mr. S. K. Dixit, Advocate
Mr. Milind Raj Dixit, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (28)
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12306 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jay Karan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Y.P. Sinha, AAG- 7
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12686 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Chetna, Advocate
Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
18/48
Mr. Sonu Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
Ms. Yeritika K. Kashyap, AC to AG
Mr. Navnet Govindam, Advocate
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12711 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Alok Abhinav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (04)
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12743 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
Ms. Yeritika K. Kashyap, AC to AG
Mr. Navnet Govindam, Advocate
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12752 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (20)
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12862 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Kumari Anjali, Advocate
Ms. Chetna, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mujtabaul Haque, GP- 12
Mr. Manish Kumar, AC to GP-12
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12868 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (14)
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12964 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (13)
Mr. Ravi Kumar, AC to GP-13
Mr. Akashay Lal Prasad, AC to GP- 13
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12980 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (11)
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13022 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
19/48
Mr. Arinjay Kumar, Advocate
Md. Danish Quamar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. K. Mandal, SC- 3
Mr. Arjun Prasad, AC to SC- 3
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13048 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (10)
Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, AC to GA-10
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 30-08-2025
Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners and
the learned Advocates for the respondents.
2. In the bunch of the writ petitions, there are two sets
of writ petitions; one set of teachers are 'Head Teachers' and
another set of teachers are 'Head Masters'. Since the issue(s) in
these writ petitions are one and identical, with the consent of the
parties, all these writ petitions have been heard together and are
being disposed off by a common order.
3. For the appreciation, the facts narrated in C.W.J.C.
No.11252 of 2025, which deals with the case of Head Teachers
and in relation to Head Masters in C.W.J.C. No.12219 of 2025
shall be treated as lead case whereas the counter affidavit filed
in the afore-noted C.W.J.C. No.11252 of 2025 duly sworn by the
Joint Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar shall be
treated as response to all the writ petitions, since the stand of the
State is one and identical in all the cases.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
20/48
4. The 1st set of Teachers were appointed as Head
Teachers in primary and elementary schools, pursuant to the
examinations conducted by the Bihar Public Service
Commission (for short 'the BPSC') under the Advertisement
No. 25/2024. Their appointments are governed by the Bihar
Elementary Schools Head Teachers Rules, 2024. Similarly the
2nd set of Teachers were appointed as Head Master in
Higher/Senior Secondary Schools, pursuant to the
Advertisement No.26/2024 duly conducted by the BPSC in
terms with Bihar State School Teacher (Appointment, Transfer,
Disciplinary Proceedings and Service Conditions) Rules, 2023.
5. Based upon the performance of the candidates, in
the process of selection undertaken by the BPSC, a merit list in
respect of the candidates were prepared, on being found them
successful. While the exercise of counselling and the
verification of the credentials were in process, in the meanwhile,
on 02.01.2025, the Director, Primary Education, issued letter to
all the District Education Officers across the State of Bihar
instructing them that all the successful candidates for the post of
Head Teachers must submit three districts preferences through
the e-ShikshaKosh portal. The letter made it clear that the
district allotment would be carried out on the principle of merit-
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
21/48
cum-choice; and if a candidate could not be allotted anyone of
the districts of their choice based on merit, the nearest available
district from their preferences would be assigned on an
administrative standpoint. In pursuant to the letter, all the
successful candidates, including the petitioners, who were
selected as Head Teachers submitted their district preferences
through online, as instructed.
6. On 03.04.2025, the Director, Primary Education,
issued a further order disclosing that altogher 35,386 Head
Teacher candidates were submitted online preferences, out of
which 35,333 online requests were verified. Based on these
verified preferences, districts were allotted to those 35,333
candidates.
7. Some of the candidates, on being aggrieved with
their non-allocation of preferential posting, preferred C.W.J.C.
No.16614 of 2025 before this Court challenging the district
allotment made pursuant to the orders dated 02.01.2025 and
03.04.2025
, contending that the entire exercise lacked statutory
basis. The matter was taken up by a Bench of this Court and by
an interim order dated 23.04.2025, the learned Single Judge
restrained the respondent-State from taking further action on the
basis of the orders dated 02.01.2025 and 03.04.2025.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
22/48
8. Consequently, the afore-noted writ petition came to
be disposed off on 15.07.2025 on being found it infructuous.
9. A fresh exercise of allotment was undertaken on
01.07.2025, wherein the Director, Primary Education, issued
Memo No.1837, cancelling the earlier district allotment and
initiated a fresh exercise. The order recorded that 35,353
verified candidates had submitted district preferences and
basing upon the principle of merit-cum-choice, a Committee
constituted under Memo No.896 dated 26.03.2025, reviewed
these applications and further allotment was undertaken through
the District Allocation Software to 35,334 successful candidates.
10. The Head Teachers are aggrieved with the
exercise carried out by the respondent authorities vide order
dated 01.07.2025 contained in Memo No.1837. Their grievance
is confined to the extent that despite securing higher position in
the merit list, their preferences were completely ignored and the
candidates ranking below them were given districts of their
choice, by disregarding the petitioners’ options; and conflicting
with the merit-cum-choice principle, the district allotment has
been carried out arbitrarily, without any uniform policy to the
detriment of the petitioners.
11. Similarly, the result of the Head Master was
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
23/48
published vide Notice dated 01.11.2024 by the BPSC with the
cut-off marks under different categories. The Director, Primary
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna issued an order
contained in Memo No.2951 dated 09.04.2024, fixing the date
of counselling for the post of Head Master and the candidates
were directed to be present. Subsequent thereto, vide letter
no.350 dated 07.02.2025 issued under the signature of Director,
Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, addressed to all the
Regional Deputy Director, Education, Bihar, directing them to
obtain the option of three divisions/districts from the candidates
of Head Master for their posting against Advertisement
No.26/2024.
12. The successful candidates, including the
petitioners submitted their option of choice of three districts
through their login id at e-ShikshaKosh portal. Subsequently,
the list of district wise posting was issued under Memo No.1616
dated 30.06.2025 under the signature of Director, Primary
Education, Bihar, Patna. It is the case of the petitioners of
second set of writ petitions that despite the district preferences
submitted by them, they have not been allowed their district of
choice; notwithstanding higher position in the merit list. In the
meanwhile, again the Director, Primary Education on the very
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
24/48
next day issued letter no.1617 dated 01.07.2025, by which all
the Regional Deputy Director, Education and District Education
Officers were requested to direct all the recommended
candidates to submit their five options of block in their allotted
districts.
13. One of the Head Masters had approached this
Court in C.W.J.C. No.11187 of 2025 assailing the impugned
order dated 30.06.2025, wherein a Bench of this Court was
pleased to pass interim order, directing till the next date fixed,
order dated 30.06.2025 issued under Memo No.1616 by the
Director, Primary Education, so far as the petitioner is
concerned, shall remain stayed.
14. The grievance of the Head Masters is also
identical to those of Head Teachers that the respondents have
not followed the principle of merit-cum-choice in allotment of
the districts and the entire exercise of allocation of district/block
suffers from various illegalities causing serious prejudice to the
right and entitlement of the petitioners.
15. In the light of the facts, discussed hereinabove, the
order dated 01.07.2025 issued by the Director, Primary
Education, Government of Bihar, vide Memo No.1837, whereby
a fresh allotment of the district for appointment of Head
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
25/48
Teachers has been made and further the order under Memo
No.1616 dated 30.06.2025 as also letter no.1617 dated
01.07.2025, relating to Head Masters were put to challenge
before this Court. The petitioners, in sum and substance, sought
for a direction upon the respondent authorities to undertake a
fresh exercise for allotment of district strictly on the basis of
merit-cum-choice principle giving due consideration to the
merit position and preferences submitted by the petitioners and
other similarly situated candidates.
16. The submissions of the petitioners led by the
learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Lalit Kishore and Mr. Abhinav
Srivastava, at the Bar that admittedly under the rules governing
recruitment and selection process of the Head Teachers/Head
Masters, there is no prescription regarding their posting based
upon the principle of merit-cum-choice. In absence of any
law/rule or policy decision, the entire exercise undertaken by the
respondents authorities are wholly without jurisdiction. The
aforesaid fact also stands fortified for the reason that when
earlier the challenge was made to the order dated 02.01.2025
and 03.04.2025 issued by the Director, Primary Education,
whereby preferences were sought for allocation of the district;
on being found it without any statutory basis, the Court, prima
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
26/48
facie, accepting the contention of the petitioners made a query
to the learned Government Advocate as to under which
provision of law/rule or policy decision of the Government, the
impugned exercise for posting the selected teachers on the basis
of their given place of choice is undertaken. The State
authorities could not be able to point out any law/rule or the
policy decision and thus the concerned respondent-State
withdrew both the impugned orders; but, surprisingly, they
proceeded afresh and again allocated the district on preferences
based on merit-cum-choice in absence of any rules/ regulations
and policy decision and, as such, the subsequent action is
nothing but the continuation of the earlier one; hence, it is
wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
17. The learned Senior Advocates for the petitioners
further contended that if the principle of merit-cum-choice has
been adopted, it should be applied across the Board. Out of total
eligible candidates, some of them have been allocated the
district of their choice based on their preferences and with
respect to some of the candidates, district has been allocated by
randomization, run through software and, as such, the action of
the respondents suffers from vice of manifest arbitrariness and
in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
27/48
Reinforcing the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Srivastava, learned
Senior Advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the
decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ramana
Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of
India and Ors.[(1979) 3 SCC 489], especially para-10 thereof
and submitted that the Apex Court unequivocally observed that
every action of the executive Government must be informed by
reasons and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very
essence of rule of law and its bare minimum requirement.
18. It is further urged that where the statue provides
for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be
done in that manner and no other manner is permissible. To
support the settled proposition, reliance has been placed on
Dipak Babaria and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.
[(2014) 3 SCC 502].
19. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioners further submitted that surprisingly on 01.07.2025
vide Memo No.1824, the earlier departmental letter no.973
dated 03.04.2025 came to be cancelled and on the same day
itself vide Memo No.1837 dated 01.07.2025, without drafting or
formulating policy or any application of mind, the Director,
Primary Education came out with the afore-noted order and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
28/48
allocated fresh district through the district allocation software by
the Committee earlier constituted under Memo No.896 dated
26.03.2025 itself, which clearly speaks of non-application of
mind. If there was no policy decision, what was the basis of
allocation of district and who took the decision and how the
district allocation software has allocated the district, is unknown
to all and unsupported by any statutory rule(s), is the contention
of the learned Senior Advocate. The entire exercise of allocation
of district, based upon the principle of merit-cum-choice is
nothing but a farce. Both the Senior Advocates, lastly contended
that there could not be any reservation in posting, which is
unknown to the service jurisprudence and thus the entire
exercise of allocation of the preferential district based upon the
principle of merit-cum-choice is wholly arbitrary, illegal and
they have been put to suffer, despite having good position in the
merit list.
20. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General, Bihar
who led the argument(s) on behalf of the State respondent
authorities started with the submission that the Government of
Bihar, in the Department of Education, has shown magnanimity
by adopting a human approach of assigning districts and schools
to their successful Head Teachers/Head Masters considering the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
29/48
minimum dislocation of the Teachers. The Department thought
it prudent to allow posting at the desired place so that Head
Teacher/Head Master may be posted nearer to his/her home. It is
the admitted position that the petitioners or the successful
candidates, who were duly selected and appointed against the
post of Head Teachers/Head Masters do not have any right to
claim their posting. It is in this premise, the entire exercise were
carried out; however, as vacancy in particular districts were
fixed and could not have accommodated, requests beyond the
sanctioned posts; hence in order to make the scheme workable,
method of merit-cum-choice was resorted to. Each and every
candidates were asked to furnish three choices and in
accordance with the merit and choice, the data was run on
software and posting was notified. However, considering the
large number of candidates, particularly in reserved category,
who were aggrieved by method of posting and their grievance
was that despite having placed in meritorious reserved category
but being below in the list of unreserved category, they were
denied their choice posting. On the other hand, in the same
reserved category, those who were below them and could not
secure a place as meritorious reserved candidates were given
preferential treatment and thus their contention was that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
30/48
methodology adopted by the Department was discriminatory.
The suffering met to those teachers compelled them to approach
before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.6614 of 2025 and resultant
stay of the notification of the posting. This led to
reconsideration of the entire exercise and on being found the
grievance of reserved category candidates to be bonafide and
genuine, the method adopted in the first tranche indeed resulted
in discrimination; detailed deliberation took place and after
thorough examination of legal aspect and on consideration of
the fallacy, a fresh procedure is delineated.
21. Referring to the statement made in paragraphs-10,
11 and 12 of the counter affidavit, learned Advocate General
submitted that at the first stage successful candidates
recommended by the BPSC under unreserved category were
allotted to the post of their choice. Thereafter, in the second
stage, based on the vacancies available in each district,
candidates belonging to disabled category and dependents of
freedom fighter were allocated districts on the basis of merit-
cum-choice principle. Coming to third stage, successful
candidates of the reserved category whose results had been
declared in the unreserved category as meritorious reserved
category candidates but who could not get their first option
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
31/48
under unreserved quota, were placed above the candidates of
their original categories, such as, EWS, BC, SC/ST and
allocated districts according to their first, second and third
preferences. The remaining unreserved category candidates, on
fourth stage, who had not secured their first choice district in
stage one, were considered; thereafter for allotment on the basis
of their second and third choices. Finally, at the last stage, those
successful candidates, who could not be allotted district as per
their above stages or under the merit-cum-choice principle even
after consideration of their three preferences, were allocated
district through a randomization process using software.
22. After narrating the entire facts, the learned
Advocate General has taken this Court through the chart
annexed as Annexure-R2/B to the counter affidavit stating that
all the eligible candidates more than 92% have been allocated
district in accordance with their choices. Only, 2662 candidates
could not be accommodated on the basis of merit-cum-choice
principle and in their cases, districts were allocated through a
randomization process run on dedicated software. The
petitioners before this Court are those, who falling within rest
8%, aggrieved with their allocation of the district based on
randomization. However, it is difficult to accommodate each of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
32/48
the candidate as per their preferences and, in such compelling
circumstances, if the selected candidates have any grievance
then Department is prepared to abandon such methodology and
assigned posting randomly, as the same is within its jurisdiction,
which may ultimately result in large scale of displacement and
inconvenience to the selected candidates only.
23. Concluding the afore-noted submissions, reliance
has been placed on a decision of the learned Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Kumar Gaurav Singh & Ors. v. The
Bihar Staff Selection Commission and Ors. [L.P.A. No.519 of
2023], wherein the learned Division Bench considering various
decisions of the Apex Court has concluded that the vacancies
created by shifting of the MRC candidates to the districts which
they opted should be filled up by those reserved candidates, they
would unsettle in the optional districts to which they were
appointed. The learned Court opined that the principle in Union
of India v. Ramesh Ram, [(2010) 7 SCC 234] would not apply
in the case rather the decision in the case of Ritesh R. Sah v.
Y.L. Yamul (Dr), [(1996) 3 SCC 253] and Tripurari Sharan v.
Ranjit Kumar Yadav,[(2018) 2 SCC 656] would squarely
apply.
24. This Court has bestowed anxious consideration to
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
33/48
the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the
respective parties and carefully perused the materials available
on record.
25. True it is that transfer and posting of an employee
is the prerogative of the State Government and no right is
conferred on an employee to claim a particular place of posting.
Even if the State Government calls for option for place of
posting, it is not bound to accept the same. The transfer and
posting being an incident and exigencies of service; a
government servant has no vested right to remain posted at
his/her choice. Hence, no legal right being conferred on the
Government employee to seek a writ of mandamus unless it is
actuated with malice and de hors the rules, regulations or the
policy decision of the State.
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Bihar v. Kaushal Kishore Singh & Ors.[1991(1) PLJR
5(SC)], has observed that “even if options were called for and
given, it is not mandatory for the Government to accept options
of the candidates and make appointment to the post. Asking for
option of candidate is only a discretionary matter and the
Government is not bound to select the candidates on the basis
thereof. Under these circumstances, the candidates who applied
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
34/48
for, though opted for, have no acquired rights, much less
indefeasible and absolute right for selection or appointment to a
particular post. As stated earlier, the Government have to
prescribe an objective and rational method or manner of
allotment of the candidates selected to the departments,
depending upon their job necessity and requirement.”
27. It would also be pertinent to observe that every
policy of the State, like any rule may not be totally mandatory.
But the decision to allocate the district based upon preferences
on the basis of principle of merit-cum-choice create somewhat a
right in the person, who is more meritorious. In such a situation,
even if the policy has not been framed but a decision is taken by
the Government, thus, it obliges the Government to adhere to it
unless there is good reasons for acting at variance with the only
caution, that every action of the State has to be just and fair. To
say the least, any order which is arbitrary, is in breach of Article
14 of the Constitution of Indian and vulnerable to challenge.
28. Undisputedly, there is no prescription available
under the rules, which govern the recruitment/selection process
of the Head Teachers and Head Masters, for inviting options
from the successful candidates to allocate them their preferential
district nor the State authorities produced any executive
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
35/48
instruction or policy decision empowering the respondent-State
authorities to allocate preferential district based upon their
preference options at the time of posting of the respective Head
Teachers/Head Masters. Nonetheless, the State has shown his
magnanimity and taken a human approach of assigning
preferential district to the successful Head Teachers/Head
Masters where they desired their posting for the reasons of
minimum dislocation of such teachers so that they can
efficiently discharge their duties and impart education to the
children.
29. Now, the question for consideration before this
Court is “as to whether in absence of the statutory rules,
regulations or policy decision, whether the State is empowered
to take such a decision of extending posting of the Head
Teachers/Head Masters based upon their preferential option of
the district/block on the principle of merit-cum-choice.”
30. V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. in the case of Som
Prakash Rekhi Vs. The Union of India & Anr., [1981 (1)
SCC 449], has observed that “social justice is the conscience of
our Constitution, the State is the promoter of economic justice,
the founding faith which sustains the Constitution and the
country is Indian humanity. The State as a model employer is
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
36/48
expected to show fairness in action.”
31. In Balram Gupta v. Union of India and
Another, [AIR 1987 SC 2354], the Apex Court has observed
that as a model employer the Government must conduct itself
with high probity and candour with its employees.
32. While laying emphasis on the role of State as a
‘model employer’ the Apex Court in Bhupendra Nath
Hazarika and Another vs. State of Assam and Others, [2013
(2) SCC 516] has observed in para-65, as follows:-
“65. We have stated the role of the State as a
model employer with the fond hope that in future a
deliberate disregard is not taken recourse to and
deviancy of such magnitude is not adopted to frustrate
the claims of the employees. It should always be
borne in mind that legitimate aspirations of the
employees are not guillotined and a situation is not
created where hopes end in despair. Hope for
everyone is gloriously precious and a model
employer should not convert it to be deceitful and
treacherous by playing a game of chess with their
seniority. A sense of calm sensibility and
concerned sincerity should be reflected in every
step. An atmosphere of trust has to prevail and
when the employees are absolutely sure that their
trust shall not be betrayed and they shall be treated
with dignified fairness then only the concept of
good governance can be concretized. We say no
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
37/48more.”
33. It would be worth noting here that welfare State
denotes a concept of Government wherein the State not only
plays a key role in the protection and promotion of economic
and social well-being of its citizens, but it also refers to greatest
of good for the greatest number and the benefit of all and the
happiness of all.
34. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh &
Ors., [1992 (4) SCC 118], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled
that the main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure
the rule of law and to see that the State and Executive act fairly
and give a fair deal to its employees consistent with the
requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
35. After careful reading of the afore-noted rulings,
this Court is of the opinion that the State being the model
employer is obliged to take a decision in the greatest of good for
the greatest number and the benefit of all. However, this
exercise must be in consonance with the Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
36. Time without number the Court has opined that in
absence of any statutory rules, regulations or policy decision, the
State Government may take a decision which would fill up the gap
and supplement it but not supplant, contrary to the prescriptions of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
38/48
the statute.
37. The very thrust of the argument(s) of the learned
Advocate General, representing the State of Bihar, does attract
to the Court, as the decision to allocate preferential district
based upon preferential option on the principle of merit-cum-
choice was adopted by the Education Department as a humane
approach showing magnanimity for the benefit of greatest
number of the Teachers, as it has been informed to this Court
and apprised through a chart that out of the total eligible
candidates, more than 92% have been allocated their choice
posting; only 2662 candidates could not be accommodated on
the basis of their merit and choice; besides none of the
petitioners able to show that any junior in the panel to him/her
in the category has been extended preference over his/her claim.
Thus, the action of the respondent-State to the extent of
extending preferential allocation of the district/block cannot be
said to be unjust, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India.
38. The petitioners before this Court are admittedly
those, who fall within 8% i.e. 2662 and a lesser number of
candidates, who could not be accommodated on the basis of
their merit and choice because of absence of the vacancies in
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
39/48
their preferential district(s). The stand of the petitioners,
disclosing arbitrariness and the prejudice caused to them,
through a chart, duly prepared and placed vide para-27 of
C.W.J.C. No.16462 of 2025, was duly explained and answered
through a comparative chart, brought on record as Annexure-
R2/B of the counter affidavit, making a comparison of the
petitioners with the candidates of different categories. The
comparison of the petitioners are mainly with the candidates,
who belonged to different reserved categories and, as such, their
comparison and the submission of arbitrariness has no leg to
stand.
39. Any dispute raised by the petitioners or
comparison can be relevant inter se between the unreserved
category candidates. The general category candidates have
nothing to do with that of the reserved category candidates.
Their comparison could be made only within their category and
not otherwise. The meritorious reserved category, who have
acquired position below in the list of unreserved category and
thereupon denied their choice posting despite having secured
good position in the reserved category but only for the reason
having secured position in the list of unreserved category, they
could not be denied preferential treatment, as it would be a bane
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
40/48
for them to having secured position in both unreserved category
as well as reserved category.
40. In the case of Ritesh R. Sah (supra), the Apex
Court while dealing with a question that a meritorious reserved
candidate is placed in the reserved merit list of his category, he
would be ranking high and may get better choice of institution
or course in a medical institution and in contrary if the same is
not provided, the meritorious reserved candidate could be
placed in a disadvantageous position, if he would not be treated
as reserved candidate, held that it would amount to making him
suffer for his better performance in the competitive examination.
The Apex Court in para-17 of the afore-noted judgment has
observed, as follows:-
“17. … In view of the legal position
enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases the
conclusion is irresistible that a student who is
entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit
though belonging to a reserved category cannot be
considered to be admitted against seats reserved
for reserved category. But at the same time the
provisions should be so made that it will not work
out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he
may not be placed at a more disadvantageous
position than the other less meritorious reserved
category candidates. The aforesaid objective can
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
41/48be achieved if after finding out the candidates
from amongst the reserved category who would
otherwise come in the open merit list and then
asking their option for admission into the different
colleges which have been kept reserved for
reserved category and thereafter the cases of less
meritorious reserved category candidates should
be considered and they be allotted seats in
whichever colleges the seats should be available.
In other words, while a reserved category
candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his
merit will have the option of taking admission in
the colleges where a specified number of seats
have been kept reserved for reserved category but
while computing the percentage of reservation he
will be deemed to have been admitted as an open
category candidate and not as a reserved category
candidate.”
41. Reinforcing the afore-noted proposition, the Apex
Court in the case of Tripurari Sharan (supra), has further held
in para-8, as under:-
“8. Often, in a competitive examination
held for the purpose of admission in technical and
medical institutions etc. some candidates
belonging to reserved category/categories, qualify
for the higher ranking on the basis of their own
merit and depending on their performance in the
common entrance test, are placed in the general
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
42/48merit list. Such class of candidates belonging to
reserved categories who qualify on their own
merit, to be placed in general merit list, are
described, for the purpose of convenience, as
Meritorious Reserved Candidate (MRC). It is by
now well settled that a MRC who goes on to
occupy a general category seat is not counted
against the quota reserved for a reserved category
candidates, but is treated as an open competition
candidate or general merit candidate.”
42. The principle reiterated and reaffirmed by the
Apex Court clearly crystallized that even when an MRC opts for
a seat reserved for reserved category candidates, caution has to
be exercised to maintain the reservation to 50%. So also it is not
open for the authorities to deny a MRC a seat in the college of
his preference based on his merit, if such seat is available at the
relevant point of time and the same is reserved for candidates of
the reserved category to which the MRC belongs. This is
because there may be instances where a MRC may not get a seat
in the institution of his choice on the basis of his own merit in
the general merit list. Under such circumstances, he may opt to
be treated notionally as a candidate belonging to the reserved
category only for the purpose of getting a seat in the college
reserved for reserved category students.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
43/48
43. The case in hand deals with the Head Teachers
and Head Masters in different primary, elementary as well as
secondary and higher secondary schools, in the different
districts of the State of Bihar forms only one cadre, respectively.
Advertisements No.25/2024 and 26/2024 clearly extended the
benefit of reservation to the candidate of reserved category for
the purpose of their selection and appointment; hence,
consideration of their performance and position in their
respective cadre cannot be ignored and placed them in
disadvantageous position by not permitting him to be treated as
reserved candidate(s) even for the allocation of preferential
district, the exercise of which is undertaken on the principle of
merit-cum-choice.
44. This Court also finds substance on the reliance
placed by the learned Advocate General in Kumar Gaurav
Singh (supra), wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court
considering all the afore-noted decisions, besides the decision of
Ramesh Ram (supra), a Constitution Bench decision followed
by Alok Kumar Pandit v. State of Assam, [(2012) 13 SCC
516], with respect to appointment to civil services, has finally
concluded in paragraphs-25 and 26, as follows:-
“25. The merit list was prepared and a list
of candidates entitled to be accommodated in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
44/48reservation post was also prepared, and then the
options were considered. A person having higher
merit would be considered for his or her optional
district first and it is in that context that ‘the MRC’
candidates who would be appointed as an
Agricultural Coordinator on merit would be
shifted to his optional district in a reserved
vacancy, which does not give him any additional
benefit or a perceived higher status in the service
of the State. It is more a rule of convenience so as
to enable the meritorious candidate to get a district
of his/her option, than one resulting in divergence
of status, when a meritorious candidate is allotted
to a higher service having a different status based
on the option exercised. If, in the event of identity
of status in the service to which appointment is
made, the reserved vacancy is deemed to have
been filled up by a MRC candidate allotted to a
district of his choice, then it would be effacing the
merit of ‘the MRC’ candidate belonging to the
reserved category. Hence, when a notional
adjustment is made on the basis of the option
exercised insofar as the district to which the
appointment is to be made, the shifting of the
appointment is only as against ‘the MRC’
candidate and the reserved category candidate
having a lesser merit, in which circumstance, the
reserved candidate having a lesser merit will have
to be considered to the vacancy created by the
shifting made of ‘the MRC’ candidate. On the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
45/48above reasoning, in the facts and circumstances of
the instant case, we are of the opinion that the
principle in Ramesh Ram (supra) would not apply
and that in Ritesh R.Sah and Tripurari Sharan
(both supra) would squarely apply.
26. We hold that the 93 vacancies created
by shifting of ‘the MRC’ candidates to the districts
which they opted should be filled up by those
reserved candidates, they would unsettle in the
optional districts to which they were appointed.
Though reference was made to Annexure-7, the
initial opinion of the General Administration
Department and the opinion of the Advocate
General, we are of the view that this does not
regulate the adjudication of the issue agitated
herein, which is also governed by decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Our interpretation would
prevail over that of the department and the
Learned Advocate General.”
45. Since in the case in hand, the State has adopted
the policy of merit-cum-choice in case of initial posting of Head
Teachers/Head Masters, which decision of the State is directly
linked with their merit(s), the choice of place of posting
depending upon the merit(s) has to be adhered to. A candidate
higher in merit has a legal right to be given the choice place of
posting in preference to person lower in merit and the State has
to bear corresponding legal obligation and, in such situation, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
46/48
right can be enforced by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
46. The position is admitted to the extent that out of
35334 Head Teachers, 32,672 were allocated districts as per
their choice and only 2662 successful candidates were allocated
districts through randomization, which gave rise to the litigation
as they have not been assigned preferential posting on the basis
of their merit(s). Similar is the case of Head Masters. The policy
adopted by the State was only with a view to minimize far
dislocation of Head Teachers/Head Masters. The difficulties of
the State to accommodate each of the candidates in their
preferential district would not be possible in case of non-
availability of vacancy in their preferential district and thus the
respondent authorities cannot be compelled to give preferential
treatment to all those, who have secured their position in their
respective category below the persons, who have been given
preferential allocation based upon the merit-cum-choice
principle. Hence, no interference is required to the impugned
orders, challenged in the bunch of these writ petitions.
47. However, this Court finds that allocation of the
district(s) by randomization through software to rest of the
candidates is not fair, as because of such process, they have
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
47/48
been displaced to far flung areas since there was no remaining
option available. Comprehending such adverse situation to
those, who have been displaced to far flung district/area, this
Court thinks it apt and proper to direct the Committee which has
been assigned the work of allocation of the preferential district
to invite their objections and deal with them manually after
acknowledging their home district and their reason for posting
in nearby district(s) qua the vacancy in the respective
districts/blocks with their merit position.
48. The learned Advocate General, during the course
of argument(s), on the observation made by this Court, afore-
noted, has submitted that the State has no difficulty to
contemplate such exercise in the best interest of the remaining
candidates, who because of non-availability of the vacancy in
the district(s) could not get preferential allocation/posting.
49. In view of the aforesaid, this Court directs the
Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna to convene a meeting with the Director,
Secondary Education as well as the Director, Primary Education
to frame a model for redressal of grievance of allocation of
nearby district after inviting objection, preferably within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a
Patna High Court CWJC No.11252 of 2025 dt.30-08-2025
48/48
copy of this order.
50. Before parting with the decision, it is also made
clear that the respondent-State shall not take any adverse action
against any of the Head Teachers/Head Masters, who have not
submitted their joining because of pendency of the writ petitions
in their respective schools.
51. The writ petitions stand disposed off with the
aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s).
52. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed off.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 21-08-2025 Uploading Date 30-08-2025 Transmission Date
[ad_2]
Source link