SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1901

PATNA HIGH COURT
HARISH KUMAR, J
Jyoti Narain Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6253 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Shreyanshi Raj, Advocate, Mr. Raushan, Advocate, Md. Tauseef Waquar, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Sazid Salim Khan, SC- 25
For the Resp. No.7:Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Chandan Jha, Advocate
For the Chancellor:Mr. R. K. Giri, Advocate, Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advocate
For the University:Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samarendra, Advocate

A transfer order executed without adhering to due process is deemed punitive and illegal, impacting the employee’s rights and entitlements.

Headnote:(A) Bihar State Universities Act - Transfer orders - The petitioner was transferred from one university to another without due process and faced punitive measures, including a two-year job debarment, resulting in his petition against the order. Sections addressing service conditions and disciplinary procedures were cited throughout the proceedings. (Paras 2, 16, 26)

(B) Disciplinary Procedures - Judicial Review - The court emphasized that transfer orders are part of service conditions and should not be interfered with unless shown to be malicious or without legal foundation. The necessity for adherence to statutory guidelines in disciplinary actions was underscored. (Paras 17, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a transfer order and associated penalties imposed without proper procedure. Despite his seniority, a junior respondent became Head of the Department, leading to allegations of favoritism and breach of statutes. (Paras 2, 4, 8)

Findings of Court:
The transfer order was deemed punitive without due process and thus illegal, warranting the petitioner’s reinstatement. The Court determined no ruling on the seniority issue as it was outside the current petition's scope. (Paras 26, 28)

Issues: Whether the transfer order was punitive and if it disregarded the petitioner’s seniority claim as set forth in university statutes. (Paras 16, 29)

Ratio Decidendi: The transfer order was ruled illegal due to improper procedure and failure to constitute a statutory committee as required, confirming the lack of validity in the imposed job restrictions. (Paras 26, 30)

Result: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

Table of Content
1. transfer order details and service conditions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. challenge to legality of transfer and seniority. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15)
3. judicial scrutiny of transfer orders. (Para 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25)
4. composite order deemed punitive and illegal. (Para 26 , 27)
5. writ petition allowed, restoring position. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT

Date : 09-12-2025

This Court has heard the learned Senior Advocate/ Advocate for the respective parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the Office order dated 17.02.2025, bearing Memo No. B/344, issued by the Registrar of the Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’) by which the petitioner has been transferred from University Department of English of the University to T.P. Verma College, Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran on administrative grounds and accordingly relieved from the University Department of English and has further been debarred from any other job or responsibility, including examination for the next two years with effect from the date/issue of the said order. The petitioner also sought a direction upon the concerned respondents to take appropriate step towards considering the case of the petitioner for appointing him in the capacity of the Head of the University Department of English by dint of his seniority in accordance with the provisions contained under the Statutes for Scheme of Rotation of Headship in the Department of Universities/College of the Universities in the State of Bihar, as communicated by letter dated 30.06.2008, bearing Memo No. BSU-26/2008-2155/GS(I) issued from the Governor’s Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.

3. The brief facts, relevant for consideration are that the writ petitioner was duly appointed against the post of Lecturer in English, based upon the recommendation made by the Bihar State University Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) vide notification dated 04.11.1996; following his joining on the said post on 06.11.1996. Subsequent upon his joining, the respondent no.7 was appointed in the Services of the University in the capacity of Lecturer in English in the year 2003 and due confirmation of his services with effect from 25.08.2003.

4. The general conditions of service of employees of the Patna, Bihar, Ranchi, Bhagalpur, Magadh, L.N. Mithila and K.S.D. Sanskrit Universities, especially Article 3(7) of the Service Statutes provide that the period of service rendered with any other previous university is only to be considered for continuity of service for the purpose of protection of pay and allowances draw, leave and half pay leave earned in that University and the age of retirement as well as the grant of benefit thereof but not for determination of his seniority. Nonetheless, while the petitioner and respondent no.7 were continuing in the capacity of Reader/Associate Professor in the services of the University by a notification dated 26.03.2017, duly approved by the Syndicate of the University, the petitioner was granted promotion in the rank of Professor in English in the services of the University w.e.f. 06.11.2013, whereas the respondent no.7 was granted promotion in the rank of Professor in English w.e.f. 28.08.2012 after taking into account of his earlier services rendered in the College of Arunachal Pradesh, where he had joined the College on 22.08.1995.

5. The provisions contained under Article 5.3.9 of the Statute of the Career Advancement Scheme clearly lays down that promotion from Reader to Professor is a personal promotion and it is not against a sanctioned post. Further Clause 7.1.0 says that when a teacher is promoted under the said Statute, the post held by him/her shall be upgraded with effect from the date of his/her promotion till the incumbent continues to hold the post but shall be converted into the basic grade post in the event of the incumbent’s appointment to a higher post or when the post falls vaca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top