Case Background
These writ petitions came from teachers working in Ayachi Mithila Mahila College, Bahera (Benipur), Darbhanga, which is an affiliated degree college under Lalit Narayan Mithila University.
In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5264 of 2018, four petitioners claimed that they had been appointed as Lecturers in different subjects on temporary basis by the Governing Body of the college, and one of them was later made permanent by the Governing Body. Their appointment dates ranged from 03.04.2007 to 09.03.2015, with joining on 05.04.2007, 07.06.2008, 26.03.2010, 15.02.2012 and 10.03.2015 as recorded in the judgment.
For compliance with the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2015, Ayachi Mithila Mahila College issued an advertisement on 14.02.2017 in the daily newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar”. The stated purpose was recommendation of the teachers working in the college by a Selection Committee and approval by the University. Applications were to be filed within a week with educational certificates and a fee of Rs. 1,000/-. The advertisement clearly mentioned that teachers already working in the college would be given priority.
The petitioners applied under this advertisement and paid the fee. Meanwhile, the Secretary of the college approached the Patna High Court in a separate proceeding for sanction of teaching and non-teaching posts in the college. By order dated 21.04.2017, the Court directed the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, to take a final decision on the recommendations of Lalit Narayan Mithila University regarding sanction of posts.
Pursuant to that order, the State Government sanctioned two posts in each subject, totalling fifty-eight teaching and five non-teaching posts, by letter dated 06.10.2017. This sanction was communicated to the college by Memo No. 17730/34-2017 dated 14.11.2017.
After the posts were sanctioned, the Principal of the college requested the Vice Chancellor of the University to constitute a Selection Committee for the permanent absorption of teachers of the college. The Principal stated that the list of teachers had already been submitted earlier by letter dated 16.06.2016.
The petitioners later came to know that their names were not in the list being processed for absorption. They therefore submitted a representation dated 15.02.2018 to the Vice Chancellor, asserting that they had applied under the 14.02.2017 advertisement and paid the fee, and that their cases should also be considered by the Selection Committee against the newly sanctioned posts.
When no relief came, they approached the Patna High Court seeking directions to the University and the college to allow them to appear before the Selection Committee, and to get their names approved for appointment against sanctioned posts.
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3751 of 2020 was filed later by three more teachers of the same college, who were also appointed after 19.04.2007 as Lecturers in different subjects. They too had applied under the 14.02.2017 advertisement for absorption. As the core question of law was common, both writ petitions were heard together and were decided by a common judgment.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Justice Alok Kumar Sinha of the Patna High Court examined one central question: whether, under the advertisement dated 14.02.2017, the petitioners’ cases could have been considered and sent to the Selection Committee for approval against the posts sanctioned on 06.10.2017.
The petitioners’ senior counsel argued that the petitioners were working teachers of the college, had been appointed by the Governing Body, and had complied with all conditions of the advertisement, including payment of the fee and submission of documents. They contended that their non-inclusion in the list sent to the Selection Committee was unjustified.
According to them, the college had refused to forward their names because their appointments were made after 19.04.2007, and the college authorities had taken the view that Section 57A(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 barred consideration of such teachers. The petitioners argued that Section 57A(6) had no application to their case and therefore could not be used as a ground to keep them out of consideration. They requested a writ of mandamus directing the University to allow them to appear before the Selection Committee and to approve their names against the sanctioned posts.
On the other side, counsel for the University and the college submitted that the relief sought was ill-conceived. They pointed out that the 14.02.2017 advertisement was not a general recruitment notice. It was issued specifically to comply with the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2015, which inserted sub-section (6) in Section 57A of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.
The Court then explained the legislative background of Section 57A(6). The State Government had earlier followed a “Vitta-Rahit Shiksha Niti”, under which many colleges did not receive regular grants. By Resolution No. 1846 dated 21.11.2008, the Government decided to abolish this policy and to give grants to these institutions, including degree colleges.
During the process of distributing grants, it was noticed that many teachers in affiliated degree colleges had long been working on posts created by the Governing Bodies, without any recommendation from the then Bihar College Service Commission. The Commission had meanwhile ceased to exist, and the Act had been amended to create a Selection Committee at the college level for appointing teachers.
In this situation, it was practically impossible for the new Selection Committee to examine every such case unless a one-time relaxation was granted. To address this, sub-section (6) was inserted into Section 57A. The Court reproduced the provision, which clearly states that the Selection Committee shall complete the scrutiny of cases of teachers of affiliated degree colleges “appointed prior to 19.04.2007” without recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission, and that such scrutiny must be completed within a fixed outer date, initially 31.03.2017.
The Court emphasised that Section 57A(6) introduced a specific cut-off date of 19.04.2007. It was meant only for those teachers who had been appointed before this date, were working for a long period, and had not been recommended by the Bihar College Service Commission. This was a distinct class, different from teachers appointed afterwards.
Later, by the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017, this sub-section was amended only to extend the last date for scrutiny from 31.03.2017 to 31.03.2018. Substantively, the provision remained the same: it continued to cover only appointments made prior to 19.04.2007.
With this legal position clarified, the Court turned back to the advertisement of 14.02.2017. The advertisement itself stated that it was being issued for compliance with the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2015. It invited applications for recommendation of teachers working in the college on sanctioned posts, clearly noting that teachers already working in the college would get priority.
The Court examined the text of the advertisement (quoted in the judgment in Hindi) and concluded that it was meant only for implementing Section 57A(6). Therefore, it could only cover teachers who had been appointed before 19.04.2007 without recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission, whose cases were to be regularised through scrutiny by the Selection Committee.
Since the petitioners in both writ cases were admittedly appointed after 19.04.2007, the Court held that they were outside the scope of Section 57A(6). As a result, they also did not fall within the scope of the 14.02.2017 advertisement.
The Court observed that the petitioners’ applications under that advertisement were “completely misplaced” and made “without understanding the true purport of the advertisement”. Because they did not qualify under its terms, the college was justified in not forwarding their names to the Selection Committee.
The Court summed up that under the legal and factual position, the respondent-college was “absolutely justified” in not sending the petitioners’ names for scrutiny by the Selection Committee. Without eligibility under the advertisement and the statute, no writ of mandamus could be issued directing their consideration.
Consequently, the Court dismissed both CWJC No. 5264 of 2018 and CWJC No. 3751 of 2020. No directions were given for absorption or for any further process in favour of the petitioners.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for teachers working in affiliated degree colleges in Bihar who were appointed by college Governing Bodies without earlier selection by the Bihar College Service Commission.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that the one-time relaxation under Section 57A(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, as amended, benefits only those teachers appointed before 19.04.2007. Teachers appointed after that date cannot claim consideration for absorption under advertisements issued specifically to implement this provision.
Practically, this means that colleges and universities are not obliged to include post-19.04.2007 appointees in lists sent to Selection Committees under such advertisements. For teachers, it highlights the need to closely read the basis of any advertisement and understand whether they fall within the statutory category targeted by that process.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether, in terms of the advertisement dated 14.02.2017, the petitioners’ cases could be considered and sent to the Selection Committee for approval by the University against the posts sanctioned on 06.10.2017.
Answer: No. The Court held that the advertisement was only for teachers appointed prior to 19.04.2007 covered by Section 57A(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, whereas the petitioners were all appointed after 19.04.2007.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior judicial decisions are cited in the judgment. The Court relied on the text and purpose of Section 57A(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Acts of 2015 and 2017.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5264 of 2018; with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3751 of 2020.
Case Title: Dr. Kumari Smita and Ors v. Lalit Narayan Mithila University and Ors; with Rupam Kumari @ Rupam Das and Ors v. Lalit Narayan Mithila University and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha.
Citation: 2026 (2) PLJR 96.
Advocates:
For the petitioners in CWJC No. 5264 of 2018: Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Gunjan Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the respondents in CWJC No. 5264 of 2018: Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate; Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Advocate.
For the petitioners in CWJC No. 3751 of 2020: Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Senior Advocate.
For the respondents in CWJC No. 3751 of 2020: Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate; Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus relating to absorption and appointment of college teachers against sanctioned posts in an affiliated degree college.
Date of Judgment: 09.12.2025.
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.
