Case Background
The case arose from the appointment of the Director of the Rural Institute of Higher Studies, Birauli, in Samastipur district. The Institute is described as an autonomous body. It has its own governing body and a specific method for appointing its Director.
The petitioner, Md. Faisal Ahmad, filed a Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC No. 6581 of 2020) before the Patna High Court. He sought a writ of quo warranto to remove respondent no. 8 from the post of Director. He also challenged the notification contained in memo no. 884 dated 19.05.2016, issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, under the order of the Hon’ble Governor, by which respondent no. 8 had been appointed.
According to the recruitment rules reproduced in the judgment, the Director’s post was to be filled by a selection process conducted through a duly constituted selection committee. That committee was to recommend a panel of names to the governing body, which alone was authorized to make the final appointment.
Despite this, the appointment order for respondent no. 8 was issued directly by the Education Department through memo no. 884 dated 19.05.2016. This triggered the present writ petition challenging his right to hold the office of Director.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Justice P. B. Bajanthri of the Patna High Court heard the matter and delivered an oral judgment on 29.03.2022. The Court first examined the relief sought by the petitioner: issuance of a writ of quo warranto to remove respondent no. 8 and quash his appointment order.
A writ of quo warranto is a legal remedy used to question whether a person is lawfully holding a public office. If the appointment is contrary to law or procedure, the High Court can declare that the person has no legal right to continue in that post.
The Court noted that respondent no. 8 was one of the candidates for the post of Director of the Rural Institute of Higher Studies, Birauli. The method of recruitment for the Director’s post, as set out in the Institute’s rules, was quoted in detail in the judgment.
Under those rules, the Director’s pay and allowances are at par with officers in Bihar Education Service Class-I, but the Director is not a government servant because the Institute is an autonomous body. For a regular appointment, a selection committee has to be constituted by the Chairman of the Institute.
The selection committee must consist of:
(a) Principal Secretary/Secretary/Special Secretary (Higher Education) of the Education Department as Chairman, (b) Director, Higher Education as Member, and (c) a teacher not below the rank of Professor nominated by the Chairman of the Institution as Member.
The selection committee has to recommend three to five suitable persons, alphabetically, to the governing body. It is then for the governing body to appoint any of the recommended persons to the post of Director.
The minimum qualifications for the Director include: a postgraduate degree with 55% marks in any subject being taught in the institute, a Ph.D. degree, and at least ten years of teaching experience in a university, college or rural institute.
The Court recorded that the selection process for the Director’s post had been completed. However, the crucial step of issuing the appointment order lay with the governing body, which was the appointing authority under the rules.
To support this, the Court referred to Annexure-2 dated 09.01.2015. This was a notification of the State Government regarding reconstitution of the governing body of the Rural Institute, Birauli. The notification, reproduced in Hindi, listed various members, including ex officio members from different departments and nominated members, and clearly showed that there existed a governing body for the Institute.
The key factual point in dispute was: who had actually appointed respondent no. 8? The Court held that, undisputedly, the appointment was not made by the governing body. Instead, the order of appointment had been issued by the Education Department itself.
The State’s counsel, Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, fairly stated, on instructions and after perusing the records, that there was non-compliance with the prescribed procedure to the extent that respondent no. 8 had not been appointed by the governing body.
Counsel for respondent no. 8 argued that the petitioner’s real intention was not public interest but to remove respondent no. 8 for personal reasons. It was alleged that the petitioner had tried to blackmail respondent no. 8 and demanded money to avoid litigation.
The Court did not go into the truth of these allegations in detail. Instead, it focused on the “crux of the matter”: whether respondent no. 8 had been appointed by the competent authority, namely, the governing body.
On the allegations of blackmail and demand for money, the Court observed that respondent no. 8 had remedies before appropriate forums, such as approaching the Bihar Lokayukta or lodging a police complaint. Hence, he could not avoid judicial scrutiny of his appointment merely by alleging improper motives on the part of the petitioner.
Based on the submissions of both sides, the Court concluded that it was undisputed that respondent no. 8 had not been appointed by the governing body. Therefore, it was a case of the Education Department usurping the powers of the governing body and acting as if it were the appointing authority.
The Court held that this was sufficient to make out a prima facie case to interfere with the appointment order of respondent no. 8.
To support its reasoning, the Court relied on several Supreme Court decisions that restate a settled legal principle: when a statute or rule prescribes that a particular act must be done in a particular manner, it must be done only in that manner or not at all.
The Court referred to:
Dhananjay Reddy vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 9. There the Supreme Court, following State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh (1964 AIR SC 358), emphasized that a power given in a particular manner must be exercised only in that manner.
T. Ramamoorthy vs. The Secretary, Sri Ramakrishna Vidyalaya High School, Tirupparaithurai, Tiruchirapalli District and Others, 1998 (4) L.L.N. 876, where the same principle was applied in relation to the powers of management under Section 22 of a statute.
Captain Sube Singh and Others vs. LT. Governor of Delhi and Others, (2004) 6 SCC 440, where a Constitution Bench decision in CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala was cited. It reaffirmed that when a statute vests power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner, it must be exercised only in that manner.
State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Ambay Cements and Another, 2005 (1) CTC 223. In paragraph 26, the Supreme Court held that when a statute prescribes a particular act to be done in a particular manner and attaches severe consequences for failure, the requirement is mandatory and must be strictly followed.
The Patna High Court then applied this line of authority. Since the Institute’s rules clearly mandated that the governing body alone could appoint the Director from the panel recommended by the selection committee, any appointment order issued by the Education Department bypassing the governing body was contrary to the prescribed manner.
The Court further cited Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Others, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 161 (paragraphs 21 and 22). The Supreme Court in that case held that a writ of quo warranto is maintainable if there are procedural lapses in the appointment process or if the appointee lacks the required qualifications or eligibility.
In light of these authorities, the Court concluded that the petitioner had indeed made out a prima facie case for issuance of a writ of quo warranto against respondent no. 8. There was a clear procedural illegality: the appointment had been made by an authority that had no power to do so.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the appointment order dated 19.05.2016, by which respondent no. 8 had been appointed Director of the Rural Institute of Higher Studies, Birauli, Samastipur.
However, the Court did not close the door on filling the post. It reserved liberty to the competent authority to proceed in accordance with law to fill the post of Director. This means that the governing body, following the prescribed selection process, is free to make a fresh appointment.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important because it shows that the Patna High Court will check whether appointments to public posts, even in autonomous educational institutions, follow the exact procedure laid down in their rules.
For teachers, staff, and students in such institutes, it signals that the government cannot bypass a governing body and make direct appointments where the rules do not allow it. The decision protects the autonomy of institutions like the Rural Institute of Higher Studies, Birauli.
For citizens, it also shows that a writ of quo warranto can be used to challenge an appointment when the basic procedure is not followed, regardless of personal disputes between individuals. The Court focused on legality of the appointment, not on alleged motives or side issues.
The judgment reinforces a simple but powerful rule: when recruitment rules specify who must appoint and how, any appointment made differently is open to being struck down.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the appointment of respondent no. 8 as Director of the Rural Institute of Higher Studies, Birauli, made by the Education Department, was valid when the rules required appointment by the governing body.
Answer: No. The Court held that the Education Department had no authority to issue the appointment order, which was the exclusive power of the governing body. The appointment order dated 19.05.2016 was therefore set aside.
Issue: Whether a writ of quo warranto could be issued where there were procedural lapses in the appointment process, even if the appointee’s qualifications were not challenged.
Answer: Yes. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that quo warranto is maintainable for procedural lapses or lack of compliance with eligibility or appointment conditions, and found a clear procedural illegality here.
Issue: Whether allegations about the petitioner’s motives, including alleged blackmail or monetary demands, could bar the Court from examining the legality of the appointment.
Answer: No. The Court held that such allegations, for which separate remedies exist, cannot be used to shield an illegal appointment from judicial review in a quo warranto proceeding.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Dhananjay Reddy vs. State of Karnataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9
- State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Others, 1964 AIR SC 358
- T. Ramamoorthy vs. The Secretary, Sri Ramakrishna Vidyalaya High School, Tirupparaithurai, Tiruchirapalli District and Others, 1998 (4) L.L.N. 876
- Captain Sube Singh and Others vs. LT. Governor of Delhi and Others, (2004) 6 SCC 440
- CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633 (referred within Captain Sube Singh)
- State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Ambay Cements and Another, 2005 (1) CTC 223
- Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 161
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6581 of 2020
Case Title: Md. Faisal Ahmad vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Date of Judgment: 29.03.2022
Citation: 2022 (2) PLJR 418
Advocates: For the petitioner: Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate. For the State respondents: Mr. Subash Chandra Mishra, SC 16, and Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against the appointment of the Director of the Rural Institute of Higher Studies, Birauli, Samastipur.
Link to Judgment: Click here to view the official 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.
