IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12258 of 2019 ======================================================

Prabhat Kumar Son of Sheer Puran Chandrika Kumar Resident of Village-

Bagmali, Post Office- Hajipur, P.S.- Hajipur (Town), District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Additional Secretary Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Director Primary Education, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. Bihar School Examination Board Through its Secretary, Sinha Library Road, Patna.

6. The Secretary Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna.

7. The District Education Officer District- West Champaran, Bettiah.

8. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) District- West Champaran, Bettiah.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satish Narain Singh For the State : Mr.Kameshwar Kumar (Gp17)

For the BSEB : Mr.P.K.Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr.Gyan Shankar ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

5 13-01-2026 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

“A. To set aside the order contained in Memo no.295 dated 25.02.2019 passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner in compliance of order dated 09.04.2018 in C.W.J.C.No.16248 of 2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court, has not been considered in accordance with the order/direction of this Hon'ble Court and has been rejected in casual manner.

B. To set aside the order contained in Memo no.3315 dated 26.08.2016 passed under the signature of District Education Officer, West Champaran, Betiah by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated.

C. To command and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service with continuity and benefits of service and back wages as well.

D. To grant any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled for in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the appointment of this petitioner’s having been made on the recommendation of Justice S.K. Chhattopadhyay (Retd.) Commission constituted under the orders of Hon’ble Apex Court for making scrutiny of the documents, and upon acceptance of such report, these appointments were not to be tinkered/interfered by the authorities in any manner. Still their appointments were interfered in the name of verification, which issues have already been adjudicated and put at rest by the Hon’ble Divison Bench vide LPA No. 1254 of 2016 and other analogous cases, on the appeal preferred by the State Government, against the judgment rendered in CWJC No. 6753 of 2013. As, the issues have already been adjudicated, and the Hon’ble Division Bench was of the view that the appointment of this petitioner was made as per the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court, after accepting the recommendation of Justice S.K. Chhattopadhyay (Retd.) and they could not been terminated on the grounds of qualification not having been properly verified, unless otherwise permitted by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and since there had been no such liberty restored to the authorities for making such verification under the garb of which, the petitioner and similarly situated persons are said to have been terminated from service and subsequently, were taken back in service under the orders of this Court, but have been denied salary for the period, when these petitioners were forced to remain out of service, while this petitioner was always available to render services to the State Government.

3. Considering the fact that the issues have already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Div