Held to Account: High Court Rejects Arbitrary Withdrawal of Appointment Approval

In a significant ruling for public employees, the Patna High Court has set aside an administrative order issued by the Bihar Education Department that sought to invalidate the appointments of Upper Division Clerks (UDC) at B. N. Mandal University. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha presided over the matter, emphasizing that the state cannot retrospectively dismantle an appointment process that it previously initiated, monitored, and approved under judicial supervision.

The Backstory: A Decade of Service, A Sudden Rejection

The petitioners, who had served the University as daily wage employees since the early 1990s, were formally appointed to the post of UDC in 2017 following a court-monitored selection process. For years, their appointments were treated as valid, with the State Government even granting approval and pay fixation under the 7th Pay Revision. However, in an abrupt reversal in 2025, the Education Department withheld approval, claiming that the post of UDC was a "promotional" position and therefore ineligible for direct recruitment.

The Court’s Intervention: Upholding Fair Play and Estoppel

Justice Alok Kumar Sinha dismissed the state's argument, finding it "legally untenable." The court invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, noting that the state had actively participated in creating the selection criteria, which included granting weightage to the petitioners for their years of past service.

"The respondents, having actively participated in and acted upon the process culminating in the appointment of the petitioners in the year 2017, are precluded in law from subsequently denying approval," the court observed. Furthermore, the bench clarified that the 2022 judgment that allowed for salary payment to these employees was not a mere administrative recommendation but a judicial recognition of their right to wages for work performed.

"No Work, No Pay" Doctrine Rejected

The state’s attempt to withhold salary arrears since June 2023 was firmly struck down. The court reaffirmed that the principle of "no work, no pay" cannot be used to justify the unjust enrichment of an employer who has obtained the services of an employee. Because the petitioners were consistently discharging duties, the court mandated the payment of salary arrears within eight weeks, along with simple interest at 6% per annum for the delay.

Key Observations

The judgment provides a stern reminder on the limits of administrative discretion:

• On the nature of the post: "The respondents’ reliance upon the promotional nature of the post to deny approval... is legally untenable in the peculiar factual matrix of this case."
• On Legitimate Expectation: "The petitioners... had a legitimate expectation that their appointments would not be unsettled on grounds which were available but not invoked at the relevant time."
• On the Right to Salary: "Where an employee has discharged duties, the employer cannot unjustly enrich itself by withholding salary on technical or administrative grounds."

Implications for Future Employment Disputes

While the court declined the petitioners' request for retrospective regularization to 1992—citing the absence of sanctioned posts at that time—the ruling acts as a critical shield for employees appointed through court-mandated processes. By preventing the state from "blowing hot and cold" by first participating in a selection process and later citing technicalities to invalidate it, this decision provides a strong precedent against arbitrary bureaucratic reversals in Bihar’s university system. The state is now directed to ensure that these employees receive their dues, marking the end of a long-standing legal battle for these veteran staff members.