Disposed¶32

Randhir Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC28 Jan 2026CWJC/1256/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court CWJC 1256 of 2022, Dr. Anshuman, 28-01-2026, disposed; Adult Education Instructor absorption regular service Class IV post parity Supervisors Vijay Kumar; order dated 26.10.2016 in C.W.J.C No. 14302 of 2014; representation not on record mandamus objection; liberty to file representation 30 days; Respondent No.4 Director Adult Education reasoned speaking order 90 days; nothing on merit; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with observations and directions: petitioner given liberty to file his representation within 30 days; Respondent No.4 (Director, Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna) directed to entertain the representation if filed within 30 days, consider every aspect of the position, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days; nothing expressed by the Court on merit. ¶32

Randhir Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, working as Instructor with Adult Education, is entitled to be absorbed in regular government service, at least on a Class IV post, on the line of the absorption of the Supervisors of the programme (and as done for Vijay Kumar) pursuant to order dated 26.10.2016 in C.W.J.C No. 14302 of 2014. +1 more

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file his representation within 30 days; Respondent No.4, the Director, Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, is directed to entertain the representation if so filed; the Court expressly states it is not expressing anything on merit.

¶28

Key takeaways

Respondent No.4, the Director, Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, is free to consider every aspect of the position and then pass a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Randhir Singh, an Instructor under the Adult Education programme (Vaishali district), sought absorption into regular government service, at least on a Class IV post, on parity with the programme Supervisors absorbed per order dated 26.10.2016 in C.W.J.C No. 14302 of 2014 (in which he and Vijay Kumar were co-petitioners). The State objected that the petition sought mandamus though no representation was on record; on the Court's query, petitioner's counsel admitted the representation copy had not been annexed and that para-20 of the petition did not disclose a specific representation. Dr. Anshuman, J., disposed of the petition without expressing anything on merit: liberty was granted to file a representation within 30 days, and Respondent No.4, the Director, Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, was directed to entertain it if so filed, consider every aspect of the position, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days. Oral judgment dated 28-01-2026; NAFR; uploaded 31.01.2026.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1256 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Randhir Singh S/o-Hardev Singh R/o-Vill-Post-Basantpur, P.S.-Jandaha, District-Vaishali.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secrertary, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶7

The Addiotional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna.

¶8

The Aditional Chief Secrertary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Director, Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The District-Programme Officer, Hajipur, Vaishali.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra (SC-16) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 28-01-2026

¶13

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and

¶14

learned Counsel for the State.

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:-

¶16

“(i) For issuance of direction/writ/order to the Respondents to absorb the petitioner in regular service who was working as Instructor with Adult Education, at least on class IV post on the line as the respondents absorbed the Supervisors of the

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.1256 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026

¶18

2/4

¶19

programme and as per order dated 26.10.2016 passed in C.W.J.C No. 14302 of 2014.

¶20

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents to apply same policy in respect of the Instructors of the programme and absorb him in regular government service.

¶21

(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents to take appropriate action with regard to the petitioner and appoint him on Class-IV post as has been done in case of Vijay Kumar, who was also petitioner with the petitioner in C.W.J.C No. 14302/2014.

¶22

(iv) To pass such other order or orders as your lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated herein below.”

¶23

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in brief,

¶24

submits that he is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the light of order dated 26.10.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No.14302 of 2014. Counsel submits that since the petitioner has moved

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.1256 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026 3/4

¶26

earlier before this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No.14302 of 2014, which was disposed off on 26.10.2016 and, therefore, he comes within the purview of the decision passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as it is a case where the case of the petitioner has been entertained earlier prior to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the State submits that writ petition has been filed for issuance of mandamus but representation is no where.

¶28

Upon the specific query of the Court to the Counsel that where is the representation. Counsel submits that though representation has been filed but copy of the same has not been annexed. He submits that representation has been made, but upon reading of para-20, it does not transpire that he has filed specific representation. As such, liberty is hereby granted to him to file his representation and respondent No.4, the Director, Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, is directed to entertain the representation of the petitioner, if he filed within 30 days explaining all the situation, this Court is not hereby expressing anything on merit. Respondent No.4, the Director, Adult Education,

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.1256 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026 4/4

¶30

Government of Bihar, Patna, is free to consider every aspect of the position and, then, pass a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days from today.

¶31