Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR, J.
Raghvendra Kumar Sharma Son of Krishna Mohan Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9515 of 2025
Decided on : 03-02-2026
University Laws – Appointment of M.A. teacher on sanctioned post in Affiliated College – 'Post facto' approval of the State Government – If appointments are made against the posts within the sanctioned strength by following all the due procedures they cannot be said to be violative of Section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and illegal on the ground that prior approval has not been taken – However, of course, the candidate must possess the eligibility and suitability and the selection/appointment process was in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Since the college enjoys the status of full deficit grant college and it is the State Government who made available necessary fund for payment of salary to its teaching and non teaching employees, the provisions contained under the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 and the relevant statutes framed thereunder are applicable even in matters of appointment and other service conditions – The appointment of the teachers of the College are governed by the provisions of Section 57A of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as amended time to time and the statutes framed in terms of Section 57B which clearly postulates the appointment of the teacher are to be made on the basis of recommendation of the selection committee – Admittedly, in the present case, the process for appointment of the petitioner has been carried out following all the due procedure and the petitioner was having requisite qualification for the post on which he was duly appointed by the Governing Body – The approval should not be refused only on the premise that prior approval has not been taken – Matter remitted to the Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar to take appropriate decision. (Paras 13 & 14)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's appointment against m.a. teacher post. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding approval process for appointment. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of section 35 applicability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. no prior approval needed for sanctioned post. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. final decision to set aside the rejection of petitioner’s appointment. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
HARISH KUMAR, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University, the same is taken on record.
3. The petitioner was appointed against the post of M.A. Teacher in terms with an advertisement duly published in the newspaper by the College in question on 13.02.2013 inviting application from the eligible candidates for consideration of their cases for appointment against the teaching and non teaching posts in the concerned college.
4. Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundram, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the materials available on record clearly reflects that in terms with the advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application for appointment against the post of M.A. Teacher and after proper verification of his qualification and eligibility, he was called upon for interview held on 24.03.2013. The petitioner participated in the interview for the aforesaid post which was conducted by the duly constituted Selection Committee and on being found suitable by the Selection Committee, the name of the petitioner has been recommended for his appointment on the post of MA Teacher. There was only one post of MA Teacher as has been advertised against which the petitioner was appointed. It is submitted that the said post was duly sanctioned as is also evident from the advertisement, copy of which is marked as Annexure-P/1. After having appointed on the post of MA Teacher, necessary particulars have been placed before the University for the purposes of granting approval of the appointment of the petitioner. Accordingly, the University after due consideration on the proposal sent by the College issued a notification contained in Memo No. 653 dated 19.04.2018 giving concurrence to the appointment of the petitioner along with other teachers.
5. Subsequently, the University vide its letter No. A1/14046/18 dated 19.09.2018 requested the State Government for making budgetary provision for payment of salary with grant-in-aid for the same, but no action has been taken by the State Government. In the aforesaid premise, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 23533 of 2018 seeking a direction for payment of his salary. In the meanwhile, all of a sudden the impugned order contained in Memo No. 920 dated 21.04.2022 came to be passed by the Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Bihar, Patna by which recommendation of the University for approval of the appointment of the petitioner along with others against different posts in the College have been rejected. It is this order which is put to challenge before this Court. This Court is also apprised that since earlier writ petition bearing CJWC No. 23533 of 2018 had become infructuous and, as such, the petitioner withdrew the afore noted writ petition.
6. Assailing the impugned order, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that besides the order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law as well as on facts, the reason for rejecting the approval of the petitioner’s appointment is only based upon the provision of Section 35 (2) of the BIHAR STATE UNIVERSITIES ACT , 1976 (in short ‘Act, 1976’), that in terms with the afore noted provision, the College in question has not taken prior permission of the State Government; which provision is not at all applicable in the present case. The impugned order is also said to be in teeth of the order passed by the Full Bench of this Court inBraj Kishore Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [LPA No. 36 of 1994]. The identical issue has also come up for consideration before this Court
Once a post is sanctioned, prior approval from the State Government is not necessary for appointment; eligibility and suitability can be scrutinized post-appointment.
A sanctioned post permits appointment without prior government approval; rejection of appointment was deemed arbitrary.
Appointments against sanctioned posts do not require prior approval from the State Government, allowing for post facto validation and regularization of service.
Section 57A(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act is inapplicable to teachers appointed after the stipulated date; University must process such appointments fairly.
The court held that the eligibility for consideration in teaching appointments is confined to those appointed before a specific cutoff date, and the petitioners, appointed later, do not qualify.
The court reinforced that salaries must be paid to teachers based on regularized appointments, rejecting any arbitrary withholding by the State as per established constitutional rights, regardless of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
