Case Background
Several teachers working in private degree colleges affiliated to different universities in Bihar had approached the Patna High Court by filing writ petitions. They complained that, despite teaching for many years, their salaries were not being regularly paid from State funds.
These teachers had been appointed by the Governing Bodies of their respective private colleges. All these colleges were affiliated to universities like Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. However, their appointments did not have the approval of the Bihar College Service Commission, which earlier had a central role in regular appointments.
For a long time, many such teachers were being paid from “deficit grant” released by the State, and also from grants linked to the performance of students in examinations. After some time, this system broke down, and the teachers stopped receiving regular payments. They then filed writ petitions asking the Court to direct the State to release grants to the universities so that salaries could be paid.
In almost all these writ petitions, positive orders were passed in favour of the teachers. But, in practice, there was no effective relief, as funds still did not flow. During the hearing of these writ petitions, a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court noticed that a 2015 amendment had been made to the Bihar Universities Act, 1976, especially to Section 57-A.
A new sub-section (6) was added to Section 57-A, dealing with teachers of affiliated degree colleges appointed before 19.04.2007 without Bihar College Service Commission recommendation. The State later extended the cut-off date for completing scrutiny of these appointments up to 31.03.2018.
The Single Judge relied on this amendment and held that the teachers who had approached the Court were covered by it. He directed the State to release grants to the concerned universities, for payments of salary and even pensionary benefits (in UGC pay scale) to those who had retired, and fixed a one-month period for completing this exercise.
The State of Bihar challenged that judgment by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 683 of 2023 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 690 of 2023. Both appeals arose out of writ petitions by such teachers, and were therefore heard together by a Division Bench led by the Acting Chief Justice.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench first recorded that both appeals filed by the State had a common background. The core complaint of the writ petitioners was non-payment of salaries despite long years of service in private affiliated degree colleges.
The Court noted that the writ petitioners were teachers appointed by Governing Bodies of private colleges affiliated to universities. Their appointments did not have approval of the Bihar College Service Commission, but they had continued teaching for many years.
Importantly, the Court accepted the factual finding that many of these teachers were being paid salaries from deficit grants and performance-based grants at least till 2012. There were also several private colleges which had teachers and staff but were not being funded at all by the State.
Over time, the education policy in Bihar changed. The State Government decided to support all colleges, particularly for payment of salaries to teachers and staff. To implement this, it needed clarity on which teachers had been appointed by Governing Bodies and had continued in service without Commission approval.
The judgment records that, at the time of initial appointment, such teachers were told that their appointments would be valid only for six months. Any continuation beyond that period was to be based on recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission.
This condition, however, was ignored for many years. When the authorities finally reviewed the situation, they found a large group of teachers whose appointments had never been confirmed by the Commission.
The Government also recognised that private colleges had mushroomed because the Government had stopped opening new colleges. These private colleges had created infrastructure and engaged faculty, which the Government could now use to implement its changed education policy which focused on granting finances for education through existing institutions.
Given that the Bihar College Service Commission had been dissolved, the old method of regularising appointments through Commission recommendations was no longer available. To address this gap, the Government introduced a new mechanism: the Selection Committee at the College Level under the Bihar Universities Act, 1976, as amended.
This College Level Selection Committee was supposed to complete the scrutiny of cases of teachers appointed prior to 19.04.2007 without Commission recommendation. It had to judge their eligibility based on the qualifications in force at the time of their appointment, and complete this scrutiny by 31.03.2017 (later extended to 31.03.2018).
The amended sub-section (6) of Section 57-A, reproduced by the Court, clearly stated that if scrutiny was not completed by the cut-off date, such appointments would not be treated as valid. It further required the Governing Body of each college to accept names recommended by the Selection Committee, and those names were to be finally approved by the concerned university.
The amendment also provided that the State Government’s grant amount would be distributed among the teachers of affiliated degree colleges by their Governing Bodies up to 31.03.2017 (later 31.03.2018). This formed the legislative foundation for the teachers’ claim.
While the writ petitions were being heard, the Director of Education filed a counter affidavit. In that affidavit, the State took a restrictive stand: it claimed that the 2015 amendment to Section 57-A applied only to those institutions or colleges that were already receiving grants against performance of students in an academic year.
This interpretation meant that colleges which had been receiving deficit grants, or were not receiving performance-based grants, would be left out from the benefit of the amendment. The Division Bench described this stance candidly as an attempt to withhold grants from many degree colleges which had earlier been receiving deficit grant for a long time.
The learned Single Judge, in the original writ judgment, had gone through the preamble of the 2015 Amending Act. That preamble did mention Resolution No. 1846 dated 21.11.2008, which dealt with institutions getting grant against performance. However, the Single Judge found, based on the text and purpose of the amendment, that its objective was much broader.
The Court recorded that, in the assessment of the State itself, many teachers in private degree colleges had been working for a long time but were not being paid only because their services had not been confirmed by the Bihar College Service Commission. Since the Commission no longer existed, a new body (the College Level Selection Committee) was created precisely to remedy this defect and regularise such cases across the board.
The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge that the last part of the amendment — sub-section (6) to Section 57-A — showed that the policy change was meant for teachers of private degree colleges affiliated to universities generally. It was not limited only to institutions that were earlier receiving performance-based grants.
The Bench emphasised that some colleges were not getting any grant, some were getting deficit grant, and some were getting performance-based grants. But the language of Section 57-A(6) when read as a whole, along with the overall purpose of the amendment, made it clear that all teachers of affiliated degree colleges appointed before 19.04.2007 were meant to be covered.
On this basis, the Court held that the attempt of the State to draw a line between deficit-grant colleges and performance-grant colleges for the purpose of extending financial benefits was “absolutely unwarranted and uncalled for.” The Bench remarked that this distinction only reflected a “blinkered approach” of the Department.
Accordingly, the Division Bench endorsed the Single Judge’s conclusion that the amendment applied to teachers of all affiliated degree colleges appointed before 19.04.2007 by Governing Bodies, regardless of the type of grant their colleges earlier received.
The Bench noted that sub-section (6) of Section 57-A provides that grants sanctioned by the State Government are to be distributed among teachers of concerned affiliated degree colleges by their Governing Bodies up to the notified date. The earlier extension of time to 31.03.2018 was also acknowledged.
On this footing, the Court held that the State is under an obligation to release grants to the concerned universities, so that salaries and other allowances could be paid to the writ petitioners. The Single Judge had also clarified that retired teachers must be granted their due pensionary benefits in terms of the UGC pay scale, and directed that this entire exercise be completed within one month.
The Division Bench agreed with the substance of this direction. It “endorsed” the Single Judge’s view on the entitlement of the teachers and the obligation of the State. The only modification made was in respect of the time limit.
The Bench observed that, considering the “gigantic exercise” required — covering many colleges, teachers, scrutiny, approvals, and sanction of grants — one month was too short a period. Therefore, the Court modified the judgment only to the extent of extending the time to complete the exercise from one month to three months from the date of the appellate order.
With this limited modification, both Letters Patent Appeal No. 683 of 2023 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 690 of 2023 were disposed of. Any interlocutory applications also stood disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for teachers of private degree colleges in Bihar whose appointments were made by Governing Bodies without Bihar College Service Commission approval, especially before 19.04.2007.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that the 2015 amendment to Section 57-A of the Bihar Universities Act covers all such affiliated degree colleges, not just those previously getting performance-based grants. This shuts the door on a narrow interpretation that would exclude many deserving teachers from salary and pension.
Practically, this means the State Government must release grants to concerned universities, which then must ensure payment of salaries and pensionary benefits (in UGC pay scale where applicable) to eligible teachers. The three-month deadline signals that delay cannot continue indefinitely.
For low-paid or unpaid teachers who have served for years in private affiliated colleges, the ruling offers strong support: they can rely on the High Court’s reading of the law to claim their dues, instead of being blocked by technical objections about the type of grant their college used to receive.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Does the 2015 amendment to Section 57-A of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 (particularly sub-section 6) apply only to colleges receiving performance-based grants, or to all affiliated private degree colleges with teachers appointed before 19.04.2007 by Governing Bodies without Commission approval?
Answer: The Patna High Court held that the amendment applies to teachers of all affiliated private degree colleges appointed prior to 19.04.2007, regardless of whether their colleges previously received deficit grants or performance-based grants. - Issue: Is the State of Bihar obliged to release grants for payment of salaries and pensionary benefits to such teachers through the universities?
Answer: Yes. The Court confirmed the State’s obligation to release grants to the concerned universities so that salaries and other allowances, including pensionary benefits in UGC pay scale for retired teachers, can be paid to the writ petitioners. - Issue: Was the one-month period fixed by the Single Judge for completion of the entire exercise reasonable?
Answer: No. The Division Bench found one month too short for such a large-scale exercise and extended the time to three months from the date of its order, while otherwise affirming the Single Judge’s directions.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No earlier judicial precedents are cited or relied upon in the text of the judgment provided.
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 683 of 2023 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 808 of 2019; Letters Patent Appeal No. 690 of 2023 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 250 of 2019
Case Title (LPA 683 of 2023): The State of Bihar & Ors v. Ghanshyam Jha & Ors
Case Title (LPA 690 of 2023): The State of Bihar & Ors v. Balram Pandey & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 13
Advocates (LPA 683 of 2023):
- For the Appellants (State): Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13; Mr. Ravi Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.-13
- For Respondent Nos. 1 to 21 (teachers): Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Advocate
- For Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University: Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Advocates (LPA 690 of 2023):
- For the Appellants (State): Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Ravi Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.-13
- For the Respondents (including teacher and college authorities): Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Satish Kumar Pandey, Advocate
- For Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University: Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeals by the State of Bihar against orders in writ petitions (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases) directing release of grants for payment of salaries and pensionary benefits to teachers of private affiliated degree colleges.
Date of Judgment: 30-04-2025
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
link to judgement; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM2ODMjMjAyMyMxI04=-K5TrjNvyWwc=
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.
