Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.
Chandra Kishor Gupta S/o Bhim Prasad Gupta – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7250 of 2025
Decided On : 05-05-2026
University Law – Appointment – Withholding of approval to appointment on post of Upper Divisional Clerk (U.D.C.) at B. N. Mandal University on sole ground that said post is promotional in nature – Appointments in question were culmination of a Court-monitored and State guided process, and cannot now be treated as irregular or impermissible merely by retrospectively recharacterizing nature of post – Having actively participated in creation of posts, formulation of selection criteria, and completion of selection process, respondents cannot now be permitted to turn around and invalidate outcome of such process on a ground which was neither raised at relevant time nor acted upon during course of selection – Impugned action also suffers from vice of arbitrariness, inasmuch, as it seeks to unsettle appointments made nearly eight years prior – Appointments having been made pursuant to a process evolved under aegis of this Court and with participation of State, impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. (Para 28)
University Law – Appointment – Withholding of approval – Petitioners, having been subjected to a Court-monitored selection process, framed with participation of State, and having been appointed and allowed to continue in service for a considerable period, had legitimate expectation that their appointments would not be unsettled on grounds which were available but not invoked at relevant time – Having accepted and implemented process leading to appointment of petitioners, including granting them benefit of weightage for past service and allowing them to discharge duties, respondents cannot now turn around and contend that such appointments were impermissible – Respondents derived benefit from services rendered by petitioners over the years – Subsequent attempt to deny approval, therefore, appears to be an afterthought and is legally unsustainable – Respondents are estopped from denying approval to appointments of petitioners – Impugned action cannot be sustained in law – Decision not to interfere does not amount to affirmation of reasoning or legality of impugned action. (Para 28)
University Law – Salary – Petitioners have been discharging their duties and rendering services under University – Doctrine of "no work, no pay" cannot be adverted to deny wages where work has in fact been taken – Right to receive wages for work performed is not merely contractual but is also rooted in Articles 14 and 23 of Constitution, which prohibit arbitrary deprivation and exploitation of labour. (Para 28)
University Law – Salary – Claim for grant of approval of appointment with retrospective effect, along with consequential notional benefits – Foundational requirement of holding a post borne on a sanctioned cadre was absent at the time of initial engagement of petitioners – Regularisation or grant of service benefits with retrospective effect cannot be claimed from a date when employee was not appointed against a sanctioned post – Distinction between engagement as a daily wager and appointment to a regular post is not merely procedural but goes to root of legality of claim – Regularisation, when permissible, takes effect from date of lawful appointment against a sanctioned post and not from date of initial casual engagement – Petitioners, having been engaged as daily wage workers on non-sanctioned posts during said period, cannot claim retrospective approval from those dates. (Paras 28 and 29)
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for following reliefs:
“A. For the issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, order, or orders, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the office order contained in Memo No. 14/MU/13-266/2021-175 dated 13.02.2025, relating to the petitioners issued by Respondent No. 5. i.e., The Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna, whereby approval for the appointment of the Petitioners to the post of Upper Divisional Clerk (U.D.C.) at B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, has been withheld on the grounds that direct appointments to the post through promotion are not valid.
B. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding/directing the respondents to grant approval of the appointment/service of the petitioners w.e.f. 22.06.1992, 14.01.1995.
C. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs/order/orders, in the nature of Mandamus, for granting notional benefit to the petitioners who rendered their services with full devotion and dedication in the university and were initially appointed as daily wagers (typist/assistant) and rendered their services from 22.06.1992, 14.01.1995 respectively till now, and presently, they are working as a U.D.C. (Upper Divisional Clerk) in B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as "the University") in view of their regular appointment.
D. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs/order/orders, in the nature of Mandamus, for granting the current salary along with the arrear of the salary to the petitioners, which is due since June 2023.
E. For the issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the concerned respondent authorities to take necessary actions for the payment of interest on the arrears of salary that may be deemed admissible in favor of the Petitioners, due to the unlawful and arbitrary non- payment of their salaries in accordance with their entitlements since June 2023.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ application has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure–P/32), whereby the respondent authorities have declined to approve the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and have withheld their salary. It is contended that the impugned action is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the principles of natural justice and the consistent stand earlier taken by the respondents themselves.
4. Learned counsel further submits that B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as “the University”) was established on 10.01.1992 under the provisions of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1992, upon bifurcation from L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga, and was vested with territorial jurisdiction over several districts including Madhepura, Saharsa, Purnea, Katihar, Kishanganj, Araria and Supaul. It is submitted that at the time of establishment, adequate posts were not created by the State Government, resulting in engagement of a large number of employees on daily wage or ad hoc basis for ensuring smooth functioning of the University.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that they were initially appointed as daily wagers (typist/assistant) in the University, Petitioner No. 1 vide Letter No. 2924 dated 29.06.1992 and Petitioner No. 2 vide Letter No. 336/95 dated 23.01.1995 (Annexure–P/1 series), and since then they have continuously discharged their duties without any adverse remarks. Learned counsel submits that the University made efforts for regularization of such employees and forwarded a proposal to the State Government vide letter dated 04.07.2004 (Annexure–P/2 series), followed by further correspondence including letter dated 14.09.2006 (Annexure–P/3), but no decision was ta
Appointments made with proper oversight and approval cannot be deemed illegal solely due to procedural irregularities, especially when no disciplinary actions have been taken against the appointees.
Appointments against sanctioned posts do not require prior approval from the State Government, allowing for post facto validation and regularization of service.
The principle of res judicata bars the respondents from raising any objection with regard to the legality of the appointments of the petitioners.
A court may exercise its power of review upon the discovery of new, material evidence that was unavailable despite due diligence, if such evidence establishes that an appointment met constitutional s....
Prohibition on creation of post by institution - Appointments of respondent-petitioners were void ab initio - Since these appointments were made without sanction of any post, these appointments had b....
Retrospective notional appointment entitles actual salary for worked period, promotion parity, and pension conversion; partial compliance invalid.
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
