Case Background
The case arose from a dispute over a single Graduate Trained Teacher post in a Middle School at Mathuria, Biharsharif, in Nalanda district.
The petitioner was initially appointed as a Matric Trained Teacher in this school. After he obtained qualification as a Graduate Trained teacher, he was promoted to that higher post by order dated 29.11.2012, along with many other teachers.
However, at the time of promotion, he was not allowed to continue in his original school. Instead, he was posted to Uttrakramik Madhya Vidyalaya, Shahabad at Katrisarai. Another teacher, arrayed as respondent no. 7, was posted in his earlier school on the Graduate Trained Teacher post.
Feeling aggrieved by this shift, the petitioner first approached the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 705 of 2013. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 17.01.2014 with certain observations, keeping in view that the availability of a sanctioned post in the school was under consideration.
According to the petitioner, despite that earlier order, nothing concrete was done by the authorities. Internal committees were formed and reports were prepared, but he continued to remain posted away from his original school. Eventually, he again came to the High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14612 of 2015.
In this writ, he mainly challenged Letter No. 64 dated 19.02.2014 issued by the District Education Officer, Nalanda, rejecting an Internal Five Men Committee Report dated 09.09.2013 regarding verification and identification of B.A./B.Sc. trained scale posts. He also questioned a later list of sanctioned and vacant posts prepared for Biharsharif Nagar Nigam area and sought a declaration that the sole graduate post in Middle School, Mathuria was for a B.Sc. (science) trained teacher.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, heard the petitioner, the State, and counsel for respondent no. 7.
The dispute before the Court was narrow but important: what was the nature of the only Graduate Trained Teacher post in Middle School, Mathuria? Was it a science post or an arts post? The answer to this question would decide which teacher had a better claim to serve in that school.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue was simple but had been deliberately complicated by the authorities. He submitted that there was only one sanctioned post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the school and that, from 1981 onwards, this post had consistently been treated and filled as a Graduate Trained Science Teacher post.
To support this, he relied on official records placed on the file, including Annexure-13. He also drew the Court’s attention to specific portions of the Internal Five Member Committee Report. That report itself recorded details of an official letter by which the Graduate Trained Teacher post in the school had been shown as a science subject post.
The petitioner contended that, despite this clear record, the authorities ignored both facts and law. They transferred him to another school and brought in respondent no. 7 from a different school to occupy the sole graduate post in Mathuria. According to the petitioner, this was arbitrary and illegal.
It was further submitted that orders passed by the State Information Commission in 2018, in separate proceedings, had recorded that the single post in the school was not reserved for a Graduate Arts Teacher. The petitioner relied on these orders as additional confirmation that the post was a science post.
On the other side, counsel for the State was unable to present any convincing material to rebut these points. The State essentially relied only on one noting in the Five Member Committee Report dated 06.09.2013, which recorded that the Graduate Trained Teacher post in the school was in the subject of arts.
Beyond this bare noting, the State could not produce any appointment letter, sanction order, or other official communication showing that the post was ever earmarked or reserved for arts.
The Court questioned State counsel on how this arts classification could stand in view of the official records showing continuous posting of a science teacher since 1981. No satisfactory explanation was offered.
Counsel for respondent no. 7 stated fairly that his client had merely joined the post as per the order and was not involved in creating or defending the disputed classification. When asked whether he wished to assist on the merits, he submitted that it was for the State authorities to justify their stand, and he had no role in that.
After considering all submissions and documents, the Court closely examined the record. It noted that official documents clearly showed that from March 1981 till September 2012, the Graduate Trained Teacher post in Middle School, Mathuria was filled by a Graduate Trained Science Teacher.
The Court also referred to the minutes of the Five Member Committee itself. Those minutes recorded that a Graduate Trained Science Teacher post existed in the school under letter No. 4540 dated 30.03.1988. This letter, therefore, specifically supported the science classification.
The Court observed that the State Information Commission’s 2018 orders further confirmed that there was no post reserved for a Graduate Arts Teacher in the school.
In this backdrop, the Court found the conduct of the authorities in not considering the petitioner’s case for posting in his own school to be unjustified and arbitrary. It held that the administration had acted without any factual or legal basis.
The judge then turned to the State’s only plank of defence: the committee’s noting dated 06.09.2013, which had mentioned the post as an arts post. The Court held that this single reference in the report could not help the authorities.
First, during the committee’s own meeting, the post had initially been earmarked as an arts post. But later in the same report, this was contradicted by referring to the very letter (No. 4540 dated 30.03.1988) which described the post as a Graduate Trained Science Teacher post. In other words, the committee’s own report falsified its arts classification.
Secondly, the Court stressed that from 1981 till September 2012, the post had been continuously manned by science teachers. No one had objected, raised any controversy, or suggested during those long years that the post belonged to arts.
In such circumstances, merely noting in 2013 that the post was an arts post, without any supporting letter or decision, was “absolutely without any basis” and lacked any justification.
The Court further pointed out that while there was a specific, identifiable letter acknowledging the existence of a Graduate Trained Science Teacher post in the school, there was “nothing at all” to show that the solitary post was for a Graduate Trained Arts Teacher.
Based on this detailed review, the Court concluded that the transfer of the petitioner to another school and the posting of respondent no. 7, who was a Graduate Trained Arts Teacher, on the sole Graduate Trained Teacher post in Mathuria on 29.11.2012 was totally unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned orders. It directed the authorities to issue an order posting the petitioner on the Graduate Trained Teacher post in the school where he had been working before 29.11.2012, namely Middle School, Mathuria, Biharsharif.
Regarding respondent no. 7, the Court clarified that he could be posted in accordance with the relevant Rules or on the post where the petitioner had been posted after his promotion, if respondent no. 7 so desired.
The Court fixed a timeframe for compliance. It ordered that this exercise must be completed within three weeks from the date a copy of the judgment is produced before respondent nos. 4 and 5 (the District Education Officer and District Programme Officer, Establishment, Nalanda).
With these directions, the writ petition was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for government school teachers and education officials in Bihar.
First, it reinforces that authorities cannot arbitrarily change the nature of a sanctioned post to suit transfer decisions. Long-standing records, sanction letters and actual postings over the years carry weight and must be respected.
Second, it shows that internal committee notings, if not supported by proper documents, will not be blindly accepted by the Patna High Court. If a committee contradicts earlier official letters, the Court will look at the entire record and reject unjustified conclusions.
Third, the judgment offers comfort to teachers who feel they are being displaced from posts that match their subject or qualification without proper reason. If there is a clear paper trail in their favour, the Court may intervene and restore them.
Finally, the decision also clarifies that when one teacher is wrongly displaced to favour another, the Court can protect the first teacher’s right without penalising the second. Respondent no. 7 was allowed to be adjusted elsewhere in accordance with rules, ensuring fairness to all.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the single Graduate Trained Teacher post in Middle School, Mathuria, Biharsharif was a science post or an arts post, and whether the authorities were justified in transferring the petitioner and posting an arts teacher on that post.
Answer: The Court held that official records from 1981 onwards, and a specific letter No. 4540 dated 30.03.1988, showed the post to be a Graduate Trained Science Teacher post. There was no document showing it as an arts post. Therefore, the authorities’ action in treating it as an arts post, transferring the petitioner and posting respondent no. 7 was arbitrary and unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to be reposted to that post.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior judicial decisions are cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment. The Court decided the matter on the basis of official records, committee minutes and orders of the State Information Commission.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14612 of 2015
Case Title: Sri Awadhesh Kumar Gupta v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2019 (3) PLJR 562
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Date of Judgment: 07-09-2018
Advocates for Petitioner: Not specified in the judgment text.
Advocates for Respondents: Not specified in the judgment text.
Respondent Authorities: State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Education; Director, Primary Education; Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna; District Education Officer, Nalanda; District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda; Block Education Officer, Biharsharif; and a private respondent teacher (respondent no. 7).
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging transfer/posting orders and related administrative decisions regarding the nature of a sanctioned Graduate Trained Teacher post in a government middle school.
Final Outcome: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; direction to repost the petitioner as Graduate Trained Teacher in Middle School, Mathuria, within three weeks of production of the order; respondent no. 7 to be adjusted in accordance with rules.
Link to Judgement ; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTQ2MTIjMjAxNSMxI08=-GSTu14–ak1–1Y1U=
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.
