Allowed¶46

Bindeshwari Singh and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC5 Dec 2025CWJC/15137/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: cancellation of appointments without reasons; Memo No. 866 dated 25.11.2014; District Education Officer, Saharsa; recommendation of Hon'ble Member of Parliament (Madhepura Lok Sabha constituency); quashing by writ of certiorari; reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits; restoration sought of Memo no. 820 dated 7.11.2014 and Memo no. 831 dated 15.11.2014; Bihar School Examination Board; writ allowed. Useful for arguments against administrative decisions cancelling appointments solely on an external dignitary's recommendation and without recorded reasons.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order (Annexure-11, Memo No. 866 dated 25.11.2014) set aside; petitioners reinstated in service with full back wages and consequential benefits. ¶46

Bindeshwari Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15137 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Bindeshwari Singh and Ors S/o Late Ram Avatar Singh, Resident of VillageNattigadh, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, Dist- Saharsa.

¶4

Sunil Kumar Singh, S/o Raj Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Balhampur, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, Dist- Saharsa.

¶5

Anwar Alam @ Md. Anwar Alam, S/o Md. Naeemuddin, Resident of Village- Sitanabad O.P.- Sonbarsa Luchahar, P.S. and Dist- Saharsa.

¶6

Avinash Kumar Jha, S/o Indra Mohan Jha, Resident of Village- Kahara, P.S.Saharsa, Dist- Saharsa.

¶7

Md. Shahnawaz Abbasi, S/o Md. Abbas, Resident of Village- Marar South, P.S.- Morkahi, Dist- Khagaria.

¶8

Rakesh Kumar Singh, S/o Rajeshwar Pd. Singh, Resident of VillageBiratpur, P.S.- Sonbarsa, Dist- Saharsa.

¶9

Sarfaraj Alam S/o Mahboob Alam, Resident of Village- Rajanpur, P.S.Mahishi, Dist- Saharsa.

¶10

Jai Kishore Sah, S/o Doni Sah, Resident of Village- Jitwarpur, P.S.- Sour Bazar, Dist- Saharsa.

¶11

Bibi Hanna, Wife of Md. Hamja, D/o Eas Kedari, Resident of Mohalla- Patel Chouk Station Road, Ward No.10, P.S. and Dist- Supaul. ... ... Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Bihar

¶14

The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Patna.

¶15

The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.

¶16

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Saharsa.

¶17

The Regional Deputy Directorate Education, Saharsa.

¶18

The District Education Officer, Saharsa.

¶19

Md. Zafar Ajam, S/o Chaudhary Keyamuddin, Resident of VillageLakhminia, P.O.- Banma Ithari, P.S.- Salkhua, Dist- Saharsa.

¶20

... ... Respondents

¶21

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mr. Kameshwar Kumar, GP-17 For the Respondent BSEB: Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶22

4 05-12-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar School examination

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.15137 of 2017(4) dt.05-12-2025 2/4

¶24

Board and learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.

¶25

In the present writ application, the petitioners have

¶26

prayed for the grant of following relief(s): -

¶27

“i. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Memo no. 866 dated 25.11.2014 issued by the respondent no.6 the D.E.O. Saharsa.

¶28

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ /order to restore the Memo no. 820 and 831 dated 7.11.2014 and 15.11.2014 respectively.

¶29

iii. For issuance of any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are deemed to be entitled.”

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the

¶31

attention of this Court to the impugned order contained in Memo No. 866 dated 25.11.2014, issued by respondent No.6, i.e., the District Education Officer, Saharsa, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-11. Annexure-11 is reproduced hereinbelow for needful: -

¶32

“ dk;kZy; ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] lgjlk

¶33

ekuuh; lkaln] e/ksiqjk yksd lHkk fuokZpu {ks= }kjk dh xbZ vuq”kalk ds vkyksd esa bl dk;kZy; ds i= la0 620 fnukad 07-11-2014 ,oa i=kad 831 fnukad 15-11-2014 dks rRdky izHkko ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶34

bldh lwpuk lHkh lacaf/kr dks nh tk;A

¶35

g0@& 25-11-14 ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh]

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.15137 of 2017(4) dt.05-12-2025 3/4

¶37

Kkikad ---------------------------@lgjlk fnukad uoEcj] 2014 bZ0A izfrfyfi& orZeku ,oe~ iwoZ iz/kkuk/;kid] flfÌdk ckfydk mPp fo|ky;] igyke dks lwpukFkZ ,oe~ vko”;d dk;kZFkZ izsf’krA izfrfyfi& lfpo] lacaf/kr fo|ky; izca/kdkfj.kh lfefr dks lwpukFkZ izsf’krA izfrfyfi& lfpo] fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVuk dh lsok esa lwpukFkZA

¶38

Kkikad 866@ lgjlk] fnukad 25 uoECkj] 2014 bZ0A izfrfyfi& {ks=h; f”k{kk mi funs”kd] dks iz0] lgjlk dh lsok esa lwpukFkZA

¶39

lHkh izfr ¼lfpo] fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVuk½ lfgr izkIr fd;k A g0@& 25-11-14 ”

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶41

submits that from a bare perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the appointments of the petitioners have been cancelled on the recommendation made by an Hon’ble Member of Parliament and no reasons have been assigned in the said order as to why the appointments of the petitioners are being cancelled. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is completely illegal and fit to be set aside.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bihar School Examination Board and the respondent State do not have any satisfactory answer to defend the impugned order contained

¶43

Patna High Court CWJC No.15137 of 2017(4) dt.05-12-2025 4/4

¶44

in Annexure-11, as quoted hereinabove.

¶45

Having considered the submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned order contained in Memo No. 866 dated 25.11.2014, issued by respondent No.6, the District Education Officer, Saharsa, (Annexure-11), does not contain any reason as to why the appointments of the petitioners have been cancelled and further the appointments of the petitioners could not have been cancelled merely on the recommendations made by an Hon’ble Member of Parliament. For these reasons, the impugned order contained in Annexure-11 is set aside and the petitioners are directed to be reinstated in the service with full back wages and consequential benefits.

¶46

The writ application is allowed.

¶47

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

¶48

Pawan/-

¶49

Bindeshwari Singh and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindeshwari Singh and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyendra Narayan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arun Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Fahdul Islam and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Samiur Rahman Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.