Case Background
Z.A. Islamia College, Siwan, is a recognised minority educational institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and a deficit grant college permanently affiliated to Jai Prakash University, Chapra.
The petitioner, Dr. Shaukat Ali Khan, was first appointed as a temporary Lecturer in History on 04.04.1988. Later, the college issued an advertisement in the Urdu daily “Qaumi Tanzeem” on 31.08.1988 for permanent lecturer posts, including History, allowing existing temporary teachers to apply.
An interview was held on 10.09.1988. Five candidates, including the petitioner, were interviewed. The Selection Committee recommended the petitioner, and the Governing Body, by Resolution No. 4 dated 20.09.1988, regularised his service as a permanent Lecturer in History with effect from 04.04.1988.
Respondent no. 10, Dr. Abdul Wasim Khan, was later appointed as Lecturer in History by order dated 24.04.1990, based on a separate advertisement dated 13.12.1989 published in The Times of India.
On 13.12.1990, the Secretary of the Governing Body wrote to the Bihar College Service Commission seeking concurrence to the appointments of several lecturers, including the petitioner and respondent no. 10. The Commission, by letter dated 02.09.1994, called 52 lecturers of the college for interview. It showed the petitioner for interview against the 5th History post and respondent no. 10 against the 7th post.
However, in its concurrence letter dated 31.03.1995, the Commission granted approval to respondent no. 10 against the 6th History post and omitted the petitioner’s name. When the college pointed out this error, the Commission issued Memo No. 7155 dated 06.05.1995 giving concurrence to the petitioner against the 6th post, and Memo No. 7158 dated 08.05.1995 partially modifying the earlier letter. The petitioner was approved on the 6th post, and respondent no. 10 was pushed down to the 7th post on the basis of their respective dates of initial appointment.
A vacancy arose on the 5th History post on 30.04.2004 on retirement of the then Head of Department, Sri D.D. Sharma. The Governing Body, in its meeting on 02.01.2005, decided to shift the petitioner from the 6th post to the 5th post with effect from 01.05.2004. The State Government approved this by letter dated 10.03.2006 and directed payment of salary to the petitioner against the 5th (deficit grant) post.
Respondent no. 10 challenged the order dated 10.03.2006 in CWJC No. 5712 of 2006. A co-ordinate Bench of the Patna High Court, by order dated 09.09.2011, quashed that order as well as the Commission’s orders dated 06.05.1995 and 08.05.1995 in so far as they related to the petitioner and respondent no. 10. Since the College Service Commission had been disbanded, the Court constituted a three-men committee to examine the rival claims.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The three-men committee consisted of the Director, Higher Education; the Registrar of Jai Prakash University; and the Secretary of the Governing Body of Z.A. Islamia College. The committee was directed to inspect all records, hear both sides, and submit a report to the Vice Chancellor, who would forward it with his recommendation to the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, for a final decision on salary entitlement.
The committee submitted its report on 12.03.2013. It found that the petitioner had been appointed as Lecturer in History on the basis of advertisement and interview before respondent no. 10 and had been continuously working since his initial appointment. It also recorded that respondent no. 10, though appointed on 24.04.1990, had been continuously absent from the college between 1998 and 2006 and lacked continuity of service before 09.09.2009.
Despite these findings, when the report went to the Vice Chancellor, he sent a recommendation dated 15.04.2013 in which he did not recommend either the petitioner or respondent no. 10 for salary. On the basis of this, the Joint Secretary, Education Department, with approval of the Principal Secretary, issued Memo No. 1044 dated 07.06.2013 rejecting salary claims of both lecturers.
A contempt petition (MJC No. 4003 of 2012) was then filed, alleging non-compliance with the earlier High Court directions. On 03.07.2013, the Court directed the Vice Chancellor and the Principal Secretary to pass necessary orders to ensure full compliance with the order in CWJC No. 5712 of 2006.
In response, the Vice Chancellor sent another recommendation on 16.07.2013. He took the view that, because the orders approving the petitioner and downgrading respondent no. 10’s post (dated 06.05.1995 and 08.05.1995) and the 10.03.2006 Government order had been quashed in CWJC No. 5712 of 2006, only the appointment of respondent no. 10 remained valid and legal under Section 57A of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. He therefore recommended that salary be paid to respondent no. 10.
On receiving this recommendation, the Education Department, by letter dated 10.08.2013, asked the three-men committee to review its earlier report in its light. The committee met again on 22.08.2013 and reiterated its findings of 12.03.2013 in favour of the petitioner.
Finally, the Principal Secretary, Education Department, passed Memo No. 1624 dated 04.09.2013, which is the impugned order in CWJC No. 22400 of 2013. He rejected the petitioner’s claim for salary, mainly on two grounds:
First, he held that the person who signed the petitioner’s appointment letter dated 04.04.1988, Md. M.N. Ahmad Ghani, was not the Secretary of the Governing Body at the relevant time, suggesting that the appointment might be invalid.
Second, he noted that under the Statute dated 09.09.1988 the minimum eligibility for appointment as Lecturer was a Master’s degree with at least 55% marks. The petitioner had 54.2% marks, and on that basis the Principal Secretary suspected that the appointment might have been ante-dated to 04.04.1988 just to overcome the new requirement.
In the connected writ (CWJC No. 7292 of 2014), respondent no. 10 sought arrears of salary from 24.04.1990, current salary, and compensation for mental torture and financial loss, asserting that his appointment was valid and continuous.
The petitioner argued that his appointment was validly made by the Governing Body after advertisement and interview, and that he continuously worked in the college. He pointed out that at the time of the 31.08.1988 advertisement, the applicable qualification under the 1983 Statute was a second class Master’s degree, which he possessed with 54.2% marks. The 55% requirement came only with the later Statute dated 09.09.1988 and could not apply to an ongoing selection process.
He also contended that the three-men committee, set up with consent of parties, had already found his appointment valid and earlier in time and found substantial breaks in respondent no. 10’s service between 1998 and 2006. According to him, neither the Vice Chancellor nor the Principal Secretary was authorised by the High Court’s 2011 order to override the committee’s report.
In support, he relied on several decisions concerning minority educational institutions, including:
- The State of Bihar v. Syed Asad Raza (AIR 1997 SC 2425)
- Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training v. Jt. Director of Public Instructions, Sagar ((1998) 8 SCC 555)
- Milli Trust v. State of Bihar (2016 SCC Online Pat 5242)
- Governing Body of Karim City College v. State of Bihar (1984 PLJR 86)
- State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial ((1970) 2 SCC 417)
- The Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat ((1974) 1 SCC 717)
- Mohd. Abbas @ Hassan Abbas v. A.G.M. Trust (1990 BLJR 1229)
These cases broadly affirm that minority institutions have a protected right to manage and appoint their staff and that state control must not take away that core right, although reasonable regulations to maintain academic standards are permissible.
The respondent no. 10, by contrast, challenged the petitioner’s appointment as invalid, reiterating that Md. M.N. Ahmad Ghani was allegedly not Secretary when he signed the appointment letter and that the petitioner did not possess 55% marks. He asserted that he himself was duly appointed on 24.04.1990 and has been continuously working in the college. He also claimed that the three-men committee had failed to consider relevant documents and that the Vice Chancellor’s recommendation in his favour should prevail.
The State supported the Principal Secretary’s order, arguing that the three-men committee had not recommended either name and that the petitioner was ineligible under the amended qualification requirement and appointed by an incompetent authority.
The college, however, backed the petitioner. It emphasised the committee’s findings that the petitioner had been appointed on the basis of proper selection prior to respondent no. 10 and that respondent no. 10 had long periods of absence. The University’s counsel also submitted that the Vice Chancellor’s differing report was beyond his domain and contrary to the High Court’s directions, and that on the committee’s findings the petitioner was the one entitled to salary against the 5th post.
Justice Anil Kumar Sinha analysed the rival contentions with a clear focus on two central questions: whose appointment and service record justified placement on the 5th, deficit-grant History post, and whether the Principal Secretary and Vice Chancellor were entitled to displace the three-men committee’s conclusions.
First, on factual and legal validity of the petitioner’s appointment, the Court noted that the three-men committee, after full enquiry, had found his appointment regular, based on advertisement and interview, and prior in time to respondent no. 10’s appointment. It also found the petitioner’s service continuous, whereas respondent no. 10 was absent between 1998 and 2006 with lack of continuity before 09.09.2009.
On the allegation that Md. M.N. Ahmad Ghani was not Secretary, the Court referred to the Division Bench ruling in Mohd. Abbas. There the Court had held that Md. Ghani was the mutawalli and had not been lawfully removed, and that a committee set up by the Waqf Board to manage the college was illegal and restrained from taking control. From this, Justice Sinha concluded that the ground taken in the impugned order—that Md. Ghani was not Secretary at the time of appointment—was based on a non-existent fact and could not stand.
On the qualification issue, the Court held that the advertisement for the petitioner’s selection was dated 31.08.1988, while the 55% minimum marks requirement came in only with the Statute dated 09.09.1988. The applicable rule at the time of advertisement was the earlier 1983 Statute, which required a second class Master’s degree. The petitioner, with 54.2% marks, satisfied that standard. Therefore, the later increase in the minimum marks could not retrospectively invalidate his selection, and this second ground for rejecting his claim was also unsustainable.
The Court then turned to the constitutional protection for minority institutions under Article 30(1). Relying on Milli Trust, Karim City College, Mother Provincial, St. Xavier’s College, and Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training, the Court reiterated that the right to establish and administer a minority educational institution includes the right to appoint staff and manage its internal affairs. The State can impose regulations to preserve academic standards and prevent mala fide actions, but cannot take over core management decisions or interfere in the composition and functioning of the governing body.
In this case, the appointment of teachers in the minority college was subject to approval by the College Service Commission, now substituted by the University Selection Committee. Because the Commission was non-functional, the High Court itself had constituted the three-men committee, with consent of the parties, to perform a similar scrutiny of eligibility, compliance with Articles 14 and 16, and validity of the appointments.
Justice Sinha held that, in this framework, the three-men committee effectively took the place of the Commission. Once that committee, after detailed enquiry, had found the petitioner’s appointment valid, prior in time and continuous, and had noted the long break in respondent no. 10’s service, the Principal Secretary and the Vice Chancellor could not act like appellate authorities over the committee’s report. They had no jurisdiction to substitute their own opinions for the committee’s carefully recorded findings.
The Court observed that the petitioner, being appointed in 1988, had a genuine right to be considered for shifting to the 5th post, which alone carried deficit grant. Allowing respondent no. 10’s claim, despite his later appointment in 1990 and admitted long absence, and on flawed grounds against the petitioner, would amount to a “travesty of justice”.
On this reasoning, the Court set aside the impugned Memo No. 1624 dated 04.09.2013 and directed the State and other respondents to treat the petitioner as working on the 5th History post and to pay him arrears and current salary within two months of receipt of the order. Consequently, CWJC No. 22400 of 2013 was allowed, and the rival writ, CWJC No. 7292 of 2014 filed by respondent no. 10, was dismissed without costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for teachers working in minority colleges and for managers of such institutions in Bihar.
First, it confirms that when a High Court-mandated expert committee has examined appointments and service records, administrative authorities cannot casually ignore or overturn its findings without solid legal basis.
Second, the judgment emphasises that changes in eligibility rules cannot be used retrospectively to unsettle selections that began under earlier rules, especially where the college acted through proper advertisement and selection.
Third, it reinforces the constitutional protection for minority educational institutions under Article 30(1), especially their right to appoint and manage teachers, subject only to fair regulatory checks for standards and fairness.
For lecturers and non-teaching staff in deficit grant colleges, the ruling shows that genuine, earlier appointments with continuous service cannot be sidelined in favour of later appointees with breaks in service based on doubtful administrative reasoning.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Between the two history lecturers, who was legally entitled to be shifted to the 5th, deficit-grant post and receive salary from the State Government?
Answer: The petitioner, appointed in 1988 after due advertisement and interview and with continuous service, was held entitled to the 5th post and corresponding salary. The rival claim of respondent no. 10 was rejected.
Issue: Could the Principal Secretary and Vice Chancellor disregard or overrule the three-men committee’s report constituted by the High Court and deny salary to the petitioner on new grounds?
Answer: No. The Court held that the three-men committee effectively substituted the College Service Commission, and its findings, reached after full enquiry, could not be overridden by administrative authorities acting like appellate bodies.
Issue: Were the grounds used in the impugned memo—about the Secretary’s authority and the 55% marks requirement—valid for rejecting the petitioner’s claim?
Answer: No. The Court found that Md. M.N. Ahmad Ghani’s authority as Secretary had been upheld in earlier litigation, and that the 55% requirement came after the advertisement and could not apply retrospectively. Both grounds were held unsustainable.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The State of Bihar and Others v. Syed Asad Raza and Others, AIR 1997 SC 2425
- Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training v. Jt. Director of Public Instructions, Sagar, (1998) 8 SCC 555
- Milli Trust v. State of Bihar and Others, 2016 SCC Online Pat 5242
- Governing Body of Karim City College v. State of Bihar, 1984 PLJR 86
- State of Kerala etc. v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, etc., (1970) 2 SCC 417
- The Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another, (1974) 1 SCC 717
- Mohd. Abbas @ Hassan Abbas and Another v. A.G.M. Trust and Others, 1990 BLJR 1229
Case Details
Case Number: CWJC No. 22400 of 2013 with CWJC No. 7292 of 2014
Case Title: Dr. Shaukat Ali Khan v. The State of Bihar & Others; with Dr. Abdul Washim Khan v. The State of Bihar & Others
Citation: 2024 (4) PLJR 828
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Date of Judgment: 25.10.2024
Advocates (CWJC No. 22400 of 2013):
- For the petitioner: Mr. Binodanand Mishra
- For the University: Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Bindhyachal Rai
- For the College: Mr. Abhinav Srivastava
- For respondent no. 10: Mr. Siyaram Sahi
Advocates (CWJC No. 7292 of 2014):
- For the petitioner: Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman, Mr. Jai Prakash Singh
- For the State: Mr. Raghwanand, GA 11
- For the University: Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Bindhyachal Rai
- For the College: Mr. Abhinav Srivastava
Nature of the Case: Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution concerning entitlement to salary against a deficit grant post in a minority degree college and challenge to a government memo rejecting such claim.
Link to Judgment: Full text of Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
