IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16483 of 2025

======================================================

Dr. Ravindra Kumar Sohane Son of Late Sriram Sohane, residnet of B2-3,

Bhitti Colony, BAU Campus, P.O. - Sabour, P.S. - Bhitti, District- Bhagalpur,

Pin Code- 813210.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department,

Bihar, Patna.

2.Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur through its Registrar.

3.Vice Chancellor, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur.

4.Director, Administration, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur.

5.Registrar, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur.

6.Dr. Sushil Kumar Pathak University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist

(Agronomy), Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr.Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Raushan, Adv.

Ms. Shreyashi Raj, Adv.

Mr.ChinmayHarsh Karn, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Additional Advocate General (5)

Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG-5

For Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: Dr. K.N.Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, Adv.

Mr.Sriram Krishna, Adv.

Mr. Amarjeet, Adv.

Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Adv.

For Respondent No.6 Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 01-07-2026

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application has

prayed for the grant of following reliefs:

“(i) Issuance of a direction, order or

writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari

quashing that part of the office order dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

2/49

19/09/2025 bearing memo no. 753 issued under the

signature of Deputy Director, Administration,

Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur

(hereinafter referred to as "the University"), by

which in the purported compliance of the decision

taken by the Board of Management of the

University during its 38th meeting held on

18/09/2025, the petitioner has been posted against

an equivalent post at one Mandan Bharti Krishi

College, Agwanpur, Saharsa under the University

upon his reversion from the post of Director,

Extension Education under the University

allegedly upon completion of his tenure against the

said post;

(ii) Issuance of a direction, order or

writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari

quashing that part of the office order dated

19/09/2025 bearing memo no. 754 issued by the

University, by which one Dr. Sushil Kumar Pathak

University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist

(Agronomy) working in the services of the

University has been authorized to discharge the

duties attached to the post of Director, Extension

Education of the University along with the

administrative as well as financial powers of

Director, Extension Education;

(iii) Issuance of a direction, order or

writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus

commanding the concerned respondent authorities

to allow the petitioner to continue in the capacity

of Director, Extension Education in the services of

the University on the basis of his appointment

having been made against the said post strictly in

accordance with law on the basis of the decision

taken by the concerned authorities under the Board

of Management of the University during the

relevant time way back in December, 2011 as is

contained in notification dated 14/12/2011;

(iv) Issuance of a direction, order or

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

3/49

writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus

commanding the concerned respondent authorities

to allow the petitioner to continue in the services

the University against the post of Director,

Extension Education in accordance with law along

with all consequential benefits strictly in

accordance with the provisions contained under

the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010 as well

as the Statutes till the time he superannuates from

the services of the said University;

(v) Issuance of an ad interim direction upon the

concerned respondent authorities under the

University to refrain from giving effect to the

impugned order dated 19/09/2025 bearing memo

no. 753 and order dated 19/09/2025 bearing memo

no. 754 during the pendency of the present writ

application and the operation of the same be

stayed during the pendency of the instant writ

petition.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Scientist-cum-

Assistant Professor in Animal Nutrition in the erstwhile

Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa on 20.03.1991 and, over

the years, earned successive promotions to the posts of Senior

Scientist-cum-Associate Professor and thereafter University

Professor-cum-Chief Scientist on the basis of merit and

recommendations of the competent authorities. During his

service, he was also deputed as Director, BAMETI, Department

of Agriculture, Government of Bihar.

It is further submitted that while serving as

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

4/49

Director, BAMETI, the petitioner applied pursuant to

Advertisement No. 12/2011 (Annexure: P/1) issued by Bihar

Agricultural University, Sabour for appointment to the post of

Director, Extension Education. After undergoing a regular

process of direct recruitment, his candidature was recommended

by the duly constituted Selection Committee and approved by

the Board of Management. Consequently, by Notification dated

14.12.2011 bearing memo no. 1427 (Annexure: P/2), the

petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment to the substantive

post of Director, Extension Education. It is contended that

neither the advertisement nor the appointment notification

described the post as a tenure post or prescribed any fixed term

of appointment.

4. Learned counsel submits that at the time of the

petitioner's appointment, the Bihar Agricultural University

Statutes, 2010 had not come into force. The Board of

Management through a meeting held on 09/12/2010 had

resolved that until the new Statutes were framed and notified,

the Statutes of the erstwhile Rajendra Agricultural University

would govern the service conditions of the employees of Bihar

Agricultural University, Sabour. Under the applicable Statutes,

there was no provision treating the post of Director, Extension

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

5/49

Education as a tenure post. It is further submitted that although

the petitioner executed an agreement at the time of joining, the

same merely required him to abide by the Rules, Regulations,

Statutes and the Act of the University as applicable from time to

time and did not convert his substantive appointment into a

tenure appointment.

5. It is further argued that by a notification dated

14/12/2011, an agreement was executed between the petitioner

and the concerned authorities under the university and after the

petitioner joined as Director, Extension Education on

21.01.2012, the University itself consistently treated his

appointment as substantive. By Office Order dated 31.07.2015

bearing memo no. 601, it was specifically acknowledged that

the petitioner's lien on his previous post had expired on

21.01.2014 and that he continued in the services of Bihar

Agricultural University. Thereafter, by Office Order dated

27.01.2017, his pay was revised by granting advance increments

under the relevant service rules, recognising the higher

responsibilities attached to the post of Director, Extension

Education over that of a University Professor-cum-Chief

Scientist.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

6/49

Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 were published in the

Official Gazette only on 27.02.2017 and became operative

prospectively from that date. Clause 13.2(c), which provides

that the posts of Directors and Deans shall be filled by direct

recruitment for a tenure of five years, cannot be applied

retrospectively to appointments made several years earlier.

According to the petitioner, his appointment, having been made

in 2011 under the then prevailing statutory framework, could not

be altered to his detriment by applying a subsequently notified

provision.

7. It is further contended that the University itself

had consistently adopted this interpretation. In response to a

complaint received from the Governor Secretariat regarding the

petitioner's continuance, the University, by Letter dated

05.03.2021 (Annexure: P/7), categorically informed the

authorities that the petitioner's appointment was governed by the

Statutes prevailing at the time of his appointment and that

Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes,

2010 had no application to his case. Learned counsel submits

that the University had, therefore, accepted that the provision

regarding tenure appointments operated only prospectively.

It is next submitted that the same principle was

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

7/49

subsequently applied by the Board of Management in the case

of Dr. Mirazul Haque, Registrar of the University. Although an

order relieving him on completion of a purported tenure was

initially issued, the Board of Management, in its meeting held

on 08.08.2024, resolved that the provisions relating to tenure

appointments would apply only prospectively from the date of

publication of the Statutes in the Official Gazette and,

consequently, rejected the earlier view.

8. Learned counsel submits that despite adopting

this interpretation in an identical situation, the University

arbitrarily departed from its own stand in the petitioner's case

without assigning any valid reason, thereby subjecting the

petitioner to hostile discrimination. It is further argued that

despite the earlier decisions of the University, the matter was

again placed before the Board of Management in its 37th

meeting for obtaining legal opinion regarding the petitioner's

appointment. Thereafter, in its 38th meeting, the Board resolved

to treat the petitioner's appointment as tenure based solely upon

the agreement executed at the time of joining. Acting upon the

said decision, the impugned Office Order dated 19.09.2025

bearing Memo No. 753 (Annexure: P/11) was issued directing

that on completion of the alleged tenure, the petitioner be

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

8/49

reverted and posted against an "equivalent post" of University

Professor-cum-Chief Scientist at Mandan Bharti Krishi College,

Agwanpur, Saharsa and that his salary would be drawn against

such equivalent post.

9. Learned counsel submits that the impugned

order is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It is

contended that there exists no post equivalent to that of Director,

Extension Education in the College. The Director is a statutory

officer of the University whose position, under Section 18 of the

Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010, ranks above the Dean,

Registrar and other officers, whereas the post on which he has

been reverted to occupies an altogether different position.

Therefore, the direction posting the petitioner against an

equivalent post demonstrates complete non-application of mind.

It is further submitted that immediately thereafter,

by Office Order dated 19.09.2025 bearing Memo No. 754,

another officer, namely a University Professor-cum-Chief

Scientist, was directed to discharge the duties of Director,

Extension Education along with administrative and financial

powers. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was thus

effectively removed from a higher statutory office and replaced

without any authority of law. Learned counsel also contends that

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

9/49

the petitioner was never afforded any notice or opportunity of

hearing before passing the impugned orders. The orders,

therefore, have been passed in complete violation of the

principles of natural justice. It is further argued that after expiry

of the petitioner's lien in the year 2014, he does not hold any

substantive post to which he could legally be repatriated.

Consequently, the direction reverting him to an alleged

equivalent post is not only legally unsustainable but is also

incapable of implementation.

10. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned

action is contrary to the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010,

the statutory scheme governing appointments, and the consistent

stand earlier taken by the University itself. The action is alleged

to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16

and 21 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds, learned

counsel prays for quashing of Office Orders dated 19.09.2025

bearing Memo Nos. 753 and 754, with all consequential

benefits, and for permitting the petitioner to continue as

Director, Extension Education in accordance with law.

11. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, namely the Bihar Agricultural

University, opposes the writ petition and states that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

10/49

petitioner has suppressed material facts, made incorrect

statements in the writ petition and has not approached this Court

with clean hands. It is further submitted that the petitioner has

an efficacious statutory alternative remedy under Section 19 of

the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010 by way of

appeal/representation before the Hon'ble Chancellor, which has

admittedly not been availed.

12. Learned counsel further submits that the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed on the additional ground that

the petitioner has challenged only the consequential office

orders dated 19.09.2025 but has failed to challenge the decision

of the Board of Management taken in its 38th Meeting, whereby

it was resolved to repatriate the petitioner to the equivalent post

of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist. According to the

respondents, the impugned office orders merely give effect to

the decision of the Board of Management and cannot be set

aside independently.

It is also submitted that the central issue in the

present case is whether the post of Director, Extension

Education is a tenure post. Learned counsel contends that

although the petitioner was appointed pursuant to Advertisement

No. 12 of 2011, the advertisement itself clearly stipulated that

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

11/49

the selected candidate would execute a bond, could be

transferred to an equivalent post within the University and that

his service conditions would be governed by the University Act,

Statutes, Rules and Regulations as amended from time to time.

13. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's

appointment dated 14.12.2011 was purely temporary and subject

to probation for two years. It was specifically provided therein

that his appointment would be governed by the agreement

executed by him at the time of joining and by the Bihar

Agricultural University Statutes as revised from time to time. In

pursuance thereof, the petitioner executed an Agreement Bond

on 21.01.2012 expressly agreeing to abide by the Rules,

Regulations, Statutes and provisions of the University Act as

amended from time to time. It is further contended that no order

confirming the petitioner on the post of Director, Extension

Education was ever issued and, therefore, his appointment never

attained permanent status.

It is next submitted that prior to joining the post of

Director, Extension Education, the petitioner had already been

promoted in the erstwhile Rajendra Agricultural University to

the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist with effect

from 20.03.2008. The respondents contend that upon his

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

12/49

absorption in Bihar Agricultural University, his pay was merely

protected and re-fixed on the basis of such earlier promotion and

no advance increments were granted on account of holding the

post of Director, Extension Education, as alleged by the

petitioner.

14 Learned counsel for Respondent no. 2 to 5

further submits that after the establishment of Bihar Agricultural

University, the Statutes of Rajendra Agricultural University

were adopted only as an interim arrangement until the Bihar

Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 came into force. The said

Statutes were notified on 27.02.2017 and published in the

Official Gazette on 21.03.2017. Clause 13.2(c) thereof

specifically provides that the posts of Directors and Deans are

tenure posts for a period of five years. Since the petitioner's

appointment was expressly made subject to the Statutes as

amended from time to time, the said provision became

applicable to him upon enforcement of the Statutes.

It is further argued that the tenure provision has

been incorporated in conformity with the guidelines of the

Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the Model

ICAR Act and the norms governing Agricultural Universities

across the country. Learned counsel submits that the University

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

13/49

was granted accreditation by the National Agricultural

Accreditation Board subject to adoption of the ICAR Model

Act, including the requirement that senior administrative offices

such as Directors and Deans should be tenure posts. Similar

provisions are stated to exist in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central

Agricultural University, Banaras Hindu University and the

Central Agricultural University, Imphal.

15. Learned counsel further submits that the

petitioner was absorbed in the services of Bihar Agricultural

University from his initial date of appointment and continued as

an employee of the University. Since the post of Director is both

an officer and a teacher under the Bihar Agricultural University

Act and Statutes, the petitioner's service conditions necessarily

became governed by the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes

after their enforcement. Consequently, upon completion of the

prescribed tenure, the Board of Management, after obtaining

legal opinion and considering the relevant statutory provisions,

resolved in its 38th Meeting to repatriate the petitioner to the

equivalent post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has been

repatriated only to the post which he was substantively holding

before his appointment as Director, Extension Education. The

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

14/49

equivalent post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist was

available at Mandan Bharti Agricultural College, Agwanpur,

Saharsa and the petitioner has been posted against the said post

without any reduction in his pay scale, pay level or emoluments.

According to the respondents, the pay scale of Director,

Extension Education and University Professor-cum-Chief

Scientist is identical and, therefore, no prejudice has been

caused to the petitioner.

16. Learned counsel disputes the petitioner's

allegation that the University itself had earlier taken a contrary

stand regarding prospective applicability of Clause 13.2(c). It is

submitted that the communication dated 05.03.2021 relied upon

by the petitioner was merely a letter issued by the then Director

(Administration) and was not in conformity with the statutory

provisions governing the University. It is argued that the

subsequent decision of the Board of Management, being the

apex statutory body under the Act, alone governs the issue and

overrides any earlier administrative communication.

The respondents also dispute the petitioner's

reliance upon the alleged office order dated 14.08.2024

concerning Dr. Mirazul Haque. Learned counsel submits that the

said document is false and fabricated and was never issued by

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

15/49

the University. According to the respondents, the Board of

Management had in fact approved the repatriation of Dr.

Mirazul Haque after completion of his tenure and the relevant

proceedings and consequential communications have been

placed on record. It is, therefore, contended that there has been

no discrimination or inconsistent application of the statutory

provisions.

17. Learned counsel further submits that the Board

of Management considered the legal opinion regarding the

status of the posts of Director, Extension Education and

Director, Planning in its 38th Meeting and thereafter took a

conscious decision to repatriate the petitioner in accordance

with Clause 13.2(c) of the Statutes. It is contended that similar

tenure appointments have since been made to various posts

including Directors and Associate Deans-cum-Principals,

thereby demonstrating uniform implementation of the Statutes

throughout the University.

18. Responding to the petitioner's contention

regarding violation of natural justice, learned counsel submits

that the impugned action is merely a repatriation upon

completion of tenure in terms of the statutory provisions and the

conditions governing the petitioner's appointment. Since the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

16/49

petitioner was reverted to his previous substantive post carrying

the same pay scale and service benefits, no prior notice or

opportunity of hearing was required.

It is lastly submitted that no violation of Articles

14, 16 or 21 of the Constitution has been made out. The

petitioner has neither suffered any reduction in rank nor any

financial loss and has merely been repatriated to the equivalent

post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist in accordance

with the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010, the Statutes

framed thereunder, the terms of the advertisement, the

appointment order and the Agreement Bond executed by him.

Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the writ petition, being

devoid of merit, be dismissed.

19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

Respondent No. 1 (State) submits that the grievance of the

petitioner essentially arises out of the decision taken by the

Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, whereby, in compliance

with the resolution passed in the 38th Meeting of the Board of

Management, the petitioner, upon completion of his tenure as

Director, Extension Education, was posted against an equivalent

post at Mandan Bharti Krishi College, Agwanpur, Saharsa and

another officer was directed to discharge the duties of Director,

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

17/49

Extension Education.

20. Learned counsel further submits that by Office

Order issued under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Agricultural

University Act, 2010, the petitioner's previous service from

20.03.1991 was recognised and treated as valid after his

absorption in the Bihar Agricultural University. It is also pointed

out that the petitioner was granted advance annual increments

under the relevant service rules on account of the additional

responsibilities attached to the post of Director, Extension

Education, such benefit being admissible to a University

Professor-cum-Chief Scientist.

21. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner

was appointed in the year 2011 under the then existing Statutes

of Rajendra Agricultural University. At that point of time,

neither the advertisement nor the applicable statutory provisions

prescribed that the post of Director, Extension Education would

be a tenure post. It is further submitted that the Bihar

Agricultural University Statutes were notified only in the year

2017 and became effective from 21.03.2017. In view of Statute

1.2, the Statutes operate prospectively from the date of their

publication and do not have retrospective operation.

It is, therefore, submitted that although Clause

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

18/49

13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010

subsequently introduced a tenure of five years for the posts of

Directors and Deans, the said provision could not govern

appointments already made prior to the enforcement of the

Statutes. Learned counsel also points out that the University

itself, by Letter No. 1622 dated 05.03.2021 addressed to the

Governor Secretariat, had taken the stand that the petitioner's

appointment was not a tenure appointment.

22. Learned counsel further submits that Section

46(4) of the Bihar Agricultural University Act protects the

service conditions of employees upon reorganisation of the

University and does not permit any adverse alteration in such

conditions to the detriment of an employee. It is also submitted

that the Agriculture Department was not supplied with the

agenda papers relating to the meetings of the Board of

Management within the time prescribed under the Act and the

relevant Rules. The Department had received only the minutes

of the 38th Meeting without the agenda papers and, therefore,

had requested the University to postpone the meeting. It is

further submitted that no representative of the Agriculture

Department participated in the 38th Meeting. Similar requests

had earlier been made by the Department seeking the agenda

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

19/49

papers for the 37th Meeting of the Board of Management, but

the same were not furnished by the University despite repeated

communications.

ISSUES IN QUESTION:

1.Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed

on the ground that the petitioner has challenged only the

consequential Office Orders dated 19.09.2025 without

specifically assailing the decision of the Board of Management

taken in its 38th Meeting, which constitutes the foundation of

the impugned action?

2. Whether the appointment of the petitioner to the

post of Director, Extension Education, made through direct

recruitment in the year 2011, is governed by the Statutes and

service conditions existing on the date of his appointment, or

whether Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University

Statutes, 2010, notified in the year 2017, can be applied to treat

his appointment as a tenure appointment of five years?

3. Whether the decision of the Board of

Management and the consequential Office Orders dated

19.09.2025 repatriating the petitioner to an alleged equivalent

post and authorising another officer to discharge the duties of

Director, Extension Education are legally valid, particularly in

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

20/49

light of the petitioner's claim that no equivalent post exists, his

lien had already expired, and no opportunity of hearing was

afforded to him?

4. Whether the impugned action of the University

is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the Bihar

Agricultural University Act, 2010, the applicable Statutes and

the principles of natural justice, particularly in view of the

University's earlier stand regarding the prospective operation of

the 2017 Statutes and its alleged treatment of similarly situated

officers?

FINDINGS:

Issue No. 1: Whether the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has challenged

only the consequential Office Orders dated 19.09.2025

without specifically assailing the decision of the Board of

Management taken in its 38th Meeting, which constitutes

the foundation of the impugned action?

Finding on Issue No: 1

It has been submitted by the respondent-University

that the decision to repatriate the petitioner from the post of

Director, Extension Education was taken by the Board of

Management in its 38th Meeting and the said decision was

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

21/49

communicated vide Memo No. MB (38) Registrar/BAU

Sabour/96 dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure-R/I). According to the

respondents, the Office Orders dated 19.09.2025 are merely

consequential orders issued in implementation of the aforesaid

decision. It is, therefore, contended that in absence of any

specific challenge to the decision of the Board of Management

itself, the writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be

dismissed on this ground alone.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the objection raised by the respondents is wholly

technical and does not go to the root of the matter. It is

contended that the petitioner has specifically challenged the

orders dated 19.09.2025 by which his legal rights have been

affected and civil consequences have ensued. Once the

consequential orders implementing the decision of the Board of

Management are under challenge, the legality, validity and

correctness of the decision forming the basis thereof necessarily

become subject to judicial review. Merely because the petitioner

has not separately sought quashing of the minutes or resolution

of the 38th Meeting cannot render the writ petition non-

maintainable.

Having considered the rival submissions, this Court

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

22/49

finds no merit in the objection raised by the respondents.

It is well settled that a writ court is concerned with

the legality of the action complained of and not merely with the

form in which relief has been couched. The Office Orders dated

19.09.2025 are not independent administrative actions but are

the direct implementation of the decision allegedly taken in the

38th Meeting of the Board of Management. Therefore, once the

consequential orders have been assailed as being contrary to

law, the Court is competent to examine the validity of the

foundational decision on which those orders are based. If the

foundation itself is found to be legally unsustainable, the

consequential orders cannot survive merely because the

foundational decision has not been separately challenged in

explicit terms.

This Court also finds it significant that Respondent

No.1, namely the State Government, has itself brought on record

circumstances casting doubt on the manner in which the 38th

Meeting of the Board of Management was conducted. In its

counter affidavit, the State has categorically stated that the

Agriculture Department had received only the minutes of the

proposed meeting and not the agenda papers. It has further been

stated that the Department, by Letter No. 4248 dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

23/49

15.09.2025, requested the University to defer the meeting, as the

agenda had not been supplied in accordance with the prescribed

procedure. It has also been specifically pleaded that no

representative of the Agriculture Department participated in the

38th Meeting and that despite earlier communications, even the

agenda of the 37th Meeting had not been furnished by the

University. These averments have not been satisfactorily

explained by the respondent University.

Though this Court is not deciding the legality of the

38th Meeting solely on the aforesaid procedural aspects, these

facts undoubtedly provide sufficient reason to examine the

consequential action with greater scrutiny rather than rejecting

the writ petition on a technical objection.

More importantly, the real controversy involved in

the present case is not confined to the validity of a resolution

passed by the Board of Management. The principal issue

requiring adjudication is whether the appointment of the

petitioner made in the year 2011 could legally be converted into

a tenure appointment by applying Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar

Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 after its publication in the

year 2017. That issue raises substantial questions concerning the

interpretation of the statutory provisions, the service rights of

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

24/49

the petitioner and the legality of the University's action. Such

questions cannot be left undecided merely because the petitioner

has challenged the consequential orders instead of separately

challenging the Board resolution.

It is equally relevant to note that the decision of the

Board of Management by itself did not alter the petitioner's

service conditions. It was only after issuance of the Office

Orders dated 19.09.2025 that the petitioner was actually

repatriated and another officer was authorised to discharge the

functions of Director, Extension Education. It is these office

orders which gave rise to the immediate cause of action and

adversely affected the petitioner's rights. The challenge to those

orders, therefore, is sufficient to invite judicial review of the

decision on which they are founded.

The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution is intended to advance substantial justice and

not to defeat legitimate grievances on hyper-technical grounds

of pleadings. Where the legality of the consequential orders

necessarily depends upon the legality of the foundational

decision, the Court is fully competent to examine both while

adjudicating the writ petition. It is clarified that the aforesaid

view is expressed in the special factual matrix of the case and

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

25/49

shall not be treated as a general proposition of law for other

cases in which the cause of action complained of is not based on

complete lack of foundational pleadings.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the

petitioner. This Court holds that the writ petition cannot be

dismissed merely because the petitioner has not specifically

challenged the decision of the Board of Management taken in its

38th Meeting. The objection raised by the respondents is

technical and superficial in nature. Since the impugned Office

Orders dated 19.09.2025 are founded upon the said decision and

have given rise to the civil consequences complained of, this

Court is competent to examine the legality of the entire

decision-making process while exercising its writ jurisdiction.

The objection, therefore, stands rejected.

Issue No. 2:

Whether the appointment of the petitioner to the

post of Director, Extension Education, made through direct

recruitment in the year 2011, is governed by the Statutes and

service conditions existing on the date of his appointment, or

whether Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University

Statutes, 2010, notified in the year 2017, can be applied to

treat his appointment as a tenure appointment of five years?

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

26/49

Finding on Issue No. 2: This issue goes to the root

of the present controversy. The answer to this issue depends

upon the nature of the petitioner's appointment, the statutory

framework prevailing on the date of his appointment, the effect

of the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 notified

subsequently and the intention of the University as reflected

from its own records.

The admitted facts are that the petitioner was

appointed as Director, Extension Education pursuant to

Advertisement No. 12 of 2011 issued by Bihar Agricultural

University, Sabour. It is also not in dispute that after undergoing

a regular process of selection, his appointment was approved by

the Board of Management and Notification dated 14.12.2011

was issued appointing him by way of direct recruitment against

the post of Director, Extension Education. The petitioner joined

the said post on 21.01.2012.

A perusal of Advertisement No. 12 of 2011

(Annexure-P/1) does not disclose that the post of Director,

Extension Education was advertised as a tenure post. Neither the

advertisement nor the eligibility conditions nor any of the terms

and conditions stipulated that the appointment would

automatically come to an end after expiry of five years or any

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

27/49

other fixed period. The respondents have placed considerable

reliance upon Clauses 11, 13 and 14 of the advertisement, which

required the selected candidate to execute a bond, permitted

transfer to an equivalent post and provided that the service

conditions would be governed by the Act, Statutes, Rules and

Regulations as amended from time to time. Likewise, reliance

has been placed upon Clause 6 of the appointment notification

and the Agreement Bond executed by the petitioner on

21.01.2012.

This Court has carefully considered the aforesaid

documents. The appointment notification dated 14.12.2011

(Annexure-P/2) nowhere records that the appointment is purely

for a tenure of five years. On the contrary, it specifically states

that the petitioner was appointed through direct recruitment. The

relevant portion of the appointment notification reads as

follows:

“2. This appointment is by direct recruitment.

3. He will be on probation for a period of two

years from the date of joining against the post of Director

Extension Education. During the period of probation his

services are liable to be terminated for

indiscipline/unsatisfactory performance on one month’s notice.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

28/49

Similarly, the Agreement Bond dated 21.01.2012

(Annexure-P/4) merely obligates the petitioner to serve the

University for a minimum period of three years and to abide by

the provisions of the Act, Rules, Regulations and Statutes as

amended from time to time. The relevant clauses read as

follows:

“(i) That the FIRST PARTY shall serve the

University for a minimum period of three years faithfully and

sincerely with due diligence in accordance with the provisions

of the Rules, Regulations, Statutes and Act of the University and

the standing instructions issued by the competent authorities

from time to time

(ii) That during the period of three years from the

date of joining the University, the FIRST PARTY shall not seek

employment with any other agency, authority or organization

nor shall he/she submit any application for outside employment

during the period of the service agreement.

(iii) That the FIRST PARTY shall abide by the

Rules, Regulations, Statutes and the provisions of the University

Act, as amended from time to time and that these amendments

shall be binding on the FIRST PARTY.”

In the considered opinion of this Court, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

29/49

aforesaid stipulations cannot be construed as converting an

otherwise substantive appointment into a tenure appointment.

The clause requiring an employee to abide by future

amendments in service rules is a general service condition

intended to regulate service matters. Such a clause, by itself,

cannot be interpreted to authorise retrospective alteration of the

very nature of an appointment, unless the statute expressly

provides for such consequence.

It is well settled that unless a statute expressly or

by necessary implication provides for retrospective operation, it

is presumed to operate prospectively. This principle is

particularly applicable where the amendment affects vested

rights or materially alters existing service conditions. The Bihar

Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 were admittedly notified

on 27.02.2017 and published in the Official Gazette on

21.03.2017. Article 1.2 of the Statutes specifically provides that

the Statutes shall come into force from the date of their

publication in the Official Gazette. There is no provision in the

Statutes declaring that appointments already made before their

enforcement would automatically stand converted into tenure

appointments.

The respondents have relied upon Clause 13.2(c) of

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

30/49

the Statutes, which prescribes that the posts of Directors and

Deans shall be filled through direct recruitment for a tenure of

five years. The relevant provision reads as follows:

“The post of Deans/Directors will filled up through

direct recruitment for a tenure of five years which may be

extended in exceptional cases on recommendation of the Vice-

Chancellor by the Board of Management till fresh appointment

is made on term whichever is earlier.”

A plain reading of Clause 13.2(c) shows that it

prescribes the mode of future appointments to the posts of

Directors and Deans. It does not contain any language

suggesting that appointments already made years before the

Statutes came into force shall retrospectively be treated as

tenure appointments. Had the legislature intended to disturb

existing appointments, it would have incorporated a specific

transitional provision or saving clause to that effect. The

absence of such a provision assumes significance. The Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of P. Mahendran Vs. State of

Karnataka (1990) 1 SCC 411 has observed herein:

“11…………………. If a candidate applies for a

post in response to advertisement issued by Public Service

Commission in accordance with recruitment Rules he acquires

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

31/49

right to be considered for selection in accordance with the then

existing Rules. This right cannot be affected by amendment of

any rule unless the amending rule is retrospective in nature. In

the instant case the Commission had acted in accordance with

the then existing rules and there is no dispute that the

appellants were eligible for appointment, their selection was not

in violation of the recruitment Rules. The Tribunal in our

opinion was in error in setting aside the select list prepared by

the Commission.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

The factual matrix also supports the petitioner's

case. The minutes of the first meeting of the Board of

Management held on 09.12.2010 (Annexure-P/3) clearly reveal

that until the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes were

framed, the Statutes of the erstwhile Rajendra Agricultural

University would govern the service conditions of the

employees. Admittedly, under the Rajendra Agricultural

University Statutes, the post of Director, Extension Education

was not a tenure post.

The conduct of the University after the petitioner's

appointment also assumes considerable importance. By Office

Order dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure-P/5), the University

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

32/49

acknowledged that the petitioner's lien on his previous post had

expired and permitted him to continue in the services of Bihar

Agricultural University. At no point did the University indicate

that his appointment was tenure based or liable to expire

automatically after five years. Likewise, Office Order dated

27.01.2017 (Annexure-P/6) revising the petitioner's pay

proceeds on the basis that he continued to hold the office of

Director, Extension Education. Nothing in the said order

suggests that the University itself regarded the petitioner's

appointment as a fixed-term appointment.

The most significant circumstance is the

communication issued by the University itself vide Letter No.

1622 dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure-P/7) addressed to the

Governor Secretariat. In the said communication, the University

categorically explained that the petitioner's appointment had

been made pursuant to Advertisement No. 12 of 2011 under the

then prevailing statutory framework and that Clause 13.2(c) of

the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 would not

govern his appointment. The relevant portion reads as follows:

“mijksDr rF;ksa ls Li"V gS fd o"kZ 2017 esa vf/klwfpr fcgkj

Ñf"k fo'ofo|ky; ifjfu;e esa fu;qfDr ds fufeRr fofgr p;u izfØ;k iwoZ ds

o"kksZa esa gqbZ fu;qfDr dks izHkkfor ugha dj ldsxkA ,rn~uq:i ls MkW- jfonsz dqekj

lksgkus dh lsok dh fujUrjrk funs'kd izlkj f'k{kk ds in ij cuh gqbZ gSA”

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

33/49

This communication is not merely an opinion of an

individual officer. It constitutes a contemporaneous official

explanation furnished by the University itself while dealing with

the very issue presently in dispute. Such contemporaneous

interpretation of statutory provisions by the authority

responsible for implementing them carries persuasive value.

A distinction has to be maintained between

regulation of service conditions and alteration of the character

of the appointment itself. While service rules relating to pay,

leave, disciplinary proceedings, pension and other incidents of

service may legitimately operate upon existing employees, the

conversion of a substantive appointment into a tenure

appointment resulting in curtailment of the tenure of office is a

matter of substantive right. Such a consequence cannot be

inferred merely from a general clause requiring compliance with

future amendments, particularly in the absence of express

statutory language. The Court also finds merit in the petitioner's

submission that the appointment notification, advertisement and

the statutory provisions existing in the year 2011 formed the

foundation of his appointment. Those conditions could not

subsequently be altered to his disadvantage by implication

alone.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

34/49

For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that

the petitioner's appointment to the post of Director, Extension

Education is governed by the statutory provisions and service

conditions existing on the date of his appointment. Clause

13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010,

which came into force only upon publication of the Statutes in

the Official Gazette in the year 2017, operates prospectively and

cannot be applied retrospectively so as to convert the petitioner's

substantive appointment made in the year 2011 into a tenure

appointment of five years.

Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is answered in favour of

the petitioner.

Issue No. 3

Whether the decision of the Board of

Management and the consequential Office Orders dated

19.09.2025 repatriating the petitioner to an alleged

equivalent post and authorising another officer to discharge

the duties of Director, Extension Education are legally valid,

particularly in light of the petitioner's claim that no

equivalent post exists, his lien had already expired, and no

opportunity of hearing was afforded to him?

Findings on Issue no. 3: Having held while

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

35/49

deciding Issue No. 2 that the petitioner's appointment to the post

of Director, Extension Education was not a tenure appointment

and that Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University

Statutes, 2010 could not be applied retrospectively, the legality

of the impugned decision of the Board of Management and the

consequential office orders now falls for consideration.

The impugned Office Order dated 19.09.2025 bearing Memo

No. 753 (Annexure-P/11) records that pursuant to the decision

taken by the Board of Management in its 38th Meeting, the

petitioner stood repatriated upon completion of his tenure and

was posted against an "equivalent post" at Mandan Bharti Krishi

College, Agwanpur, Saharsa. By another Office Order of the

same date bearing Memo No. 754 (Annexure-P/12), Dr. Sushil

Kumar Pathak, University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist, was

authorised to discharge the duties attached to the office of

Director, Extension Education along with its administrative and

financial powers.

The legality of the aforesaid action has to be

examined on the basis of the statutory provisions governing the

University and the factual circumstances borne out from the

record. The principal contention of the petitioner is that there

exists no equivalent post to that of Director, Extension

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

36/49

Education in any constituent college of the University. It has

been argued that the post of Director is a statutory office created

under the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010 and occupies

a distinct position in the administrative hierarchy of the

University.

This submission deserves acceptance. Section 18 of

the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010 enumerates the

officers of the University. A plain reading of the said provision

shows that after the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, the

Directors of the University find place in the statutory hierarchy,

followed by the Deans, Registrar, Comptroller and other

officers. The statutory position of the Director, therefore, is

distinct from the teaching positions available in the constituent

colleges of the University. The respondents have not placed any

statutory provision, Regulation or Schedule demonstrating that

the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist is legally

equivalent to the statutory office of Director, Extension

Education. The respondents have principally relied upon the fact

that both posts carry the same pay level and that the petitioner

has suffered no financial loss. However, equivalence in service

jurisprudence cannot be determined merely on the basis of

identical pay scales. Nature of duties, statutory status, powers,

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

37/49

responsibilities, administrative control, channel of promotion

and place in the organisational hierarchy are equally relevant

considerations.

In the present case, the material placed on record

indicates that the office of Director, Extension Education carries

independent administrative as well as financial responsibilities.

This is also evident from Office Order dated 19.09.2025 bearing

Memo No. 754 whereby another officer was specifically

authorised to discharge the administrative and financial powers

attached to the office of Director, Extension Education.

If the office of Director, Extension Education was

truly equivalent to the post of University Professor-cum-Chief

Scientist, there would have been no necessity to separately

confer the statutory and administrative powers of the Director

upon another officer. The very issuance of Office Order No. 754

demonstrates that the office of Director carries powers and

responsibilities independent of the teaching post against which

the petitioner has been repatriated.

The respondents have also relied upon Clause 13 of

Advertisement No. 12 of 2011, which provides that the selected

candidate may be transferred to an equivalent post within the

jurisdiction of the University. The said clause cannot advance

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

38/49

the respondents' case. The power to transfer against an

equivalent post necessarily presupposes the existence of a

legally recognised equivalent post. Such a clause cannot

authorise the employer to treat two dissimilar statutory offices

as equivalent merely because they carry the same pay scale. In

the absence of any statutory material establishing such

equivalence, the impugned order cannot be sustained on that

basis alone.

Another significant aspect concerns the petitioner's

lien. The record discloses that by Office Order dated 31.07.2015

(Annexure-P/5), the University itself acknowledged that the

petitioner's lien against his earlier post had expired on

21.01.2014. The relevant portion of the said office order reads

as follows:

"MkW- vkj- ds- lksgkus] funs'kd izlkj f'k{kk] fcgkj Ñf"k

fo'ofo|ky;] lckSj ds in ij xzg.kkf/kdkj ds vk/kkj ij dk;Zjr FksA

xzg.kkf/kdkj dh vof/k fnukad% 21-01-2014 dks lekIr gks x;h ijUrq os jktsUnz

Ñf"k fo'ofo|ky;] iwlk dh lsok esa okil ugha x;sA

iz/kku lfpo] fcgkj ljdkj] Ñf"k foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k

4@lfpok Ñ-fo-&13@2011 ¼[k.M½&181@Ñ- iVuk fnukad 12-01-2015 Kkiakd

222 fnukad% 14-01-2015 }kjk ijLij vkesyu ij iz'uxr f'k{kdksa@oSKkfudksa dks

fo'ofo|ky; vkoafVr djrs gq, ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd tks

oSKkfud@'kS{kf.kd dehZ ftl Ñf"k fo'ofo|ky; esa dk;Z dj jgs gSa os mlh

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

39/49

fo'ofo|ky; dh lsok esa cus jgsaxsA"

The respondents have attempted to justify the

repatriation by contending that the petitioner has merely been

sent back to the post of University Professor-cum-Chief

Scientist, which he had earlier held.

This submission cannot be accepted. The concept

of repatriation ordinarily presupposes the existence of a

substantive post or lien to which the employee can legally

return. Once the respondents themselves recognised that the

petitioner's lien had ceased in the year 2014 and that he

thereafter continued in the services of Bihar Agricultural

University, there remained no legal foundation for repatriating

him after more than a decade on the assumption that he

continued to possess a right over his previous post. The

respondents have relied upon the notification issued by Rajendra

Agricultural University granting promotion to the petitioner as

University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist. However, that

notification by itself does not establish the continued existence

of a lien after the University itself had declared the lien to have

expired.

The Court also finds substance in the petitioner's

contention regarding violation of the principles of natural

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

40/49

justice. It is an admitted position that before issuance of Office

Orders dated 19.09.2025, no notice was issued to the petitioner

and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. The

respondents have argued that since the impugned action merely

amounted to repatriation under the terms of appointment, no

hearing was required. The submission is difficult to accept. The

impugned orders do not merely regulate the petitioner's place of

posting. They remove the petitioner from a statutory office

which he had been holding continuously since January, 2012,

deprive him of the administrative and financial powers attached

to that office and simultaneously authorise another officer to

discharge those functions.

An action having such serious civil consequences

could not have been taken without observing the minimum

requirements of fairness. Even where a statute is silent,

compliance with the principles of natural justice is ordinarily

required unless specifically excluded either expressly or by

necessary implication. No such exclusion has been brought to

the notice of this Court. The respondents have also not produced

any material to show that the petitioner was associated with the

decision-making process or was afforded an opportunity to

explain his case before the Board of Management arrived at its

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

41/49

conclusion.

For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the

considered view that the decision of the Board of Management

dated 18.09.2025, insofar as it directs repatriation of the

petitioner to an alleged equivalent post, and the consequential

Office Orders dated 19.09.2025 bearing Memo Nos. 753 and

754 cannot be sustained in law. The respondents have failed to

establish the existence of any legally equivalent post to that of

Director, Extension Education, have acted contrary to their own

earlier determination regarding expiry of the petitioner's lien,

and have passed the impugned orders without affording the

petitioner any opportunity of hearing despite the serious civil

consequences flowing therefrom.

Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is answered in favour of

the petitioner.

Issue No. 4

Whether the impugned action of the University

is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the Bihar

Agricultural University Act, 2010, the applicable Statutes

and the principles of natural justice, particularly in view of

the University's earlier stand regarding the prospective

operation of the 2017 Statutes and its alleged treatment of

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

42/49

similarly situated officers?

Findings on Issue No.4: This issue goes to the root

of the controversy as it concerns the legality of the decision-

making process adopted by the University and whether the

impugned action satisfies the constitutional requirements of

fairness, equality and non-arbitrariness. The learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the impugned Office Orders dated

19.09.2025 are the result of an arbitrary and discriminatory

exercise of power by the University and are liable to be quashed

as being contrary to the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural

University Act, 2010, the applicable Statutes and Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution of India.

It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as

Director, Extension Education pursuant to Advertisement No. 12

of 2011 through a regular process of direct recruitment after

recommendation of the duly constituted Selection Committee

and approval of the Board of Management. At the time of such

appointment, neither the applicable Statutes nor the

advertisement prescribed that the post was a tenure post. The

petitioner thereafter continuously discharged the duties of the

said office for more than thirteen years without any objection

from the University regarding the nature of his appointment.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

43/49

It is further submitted that even after publication of

the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 in the Official

Gazette in the year 2017, the University itself consistently

proceeded on the footing that the newly introduced tenure

provisions would operate prospectively and would not affect

appointments already made. In this regard, reliance has been

placed upon the communication issued by the Director

(Administration), Bihar Agricultural University bearing Memo

No. 1622 dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure-P/7), addressed to the

Governor Secretariat, wherein the University itself categorically

recorded that the petitioner's appointment had been made

pursuant to Advertisement No. 12 of 2011 under the then

prevailing Statutes and, therefore, Clause 13.2(c) of the 2017

Statutes regarding five-year tenure was not applicable to him.

The learned counsel submits that the said

communication constitutes an official and conscious

interpretation adopted by the University itself regarding the

applicability of Clause 13.2(c). In absence of any subsequent

statutory amendment having retrospective effect, the University

could not arbitrarily depart from its own earlier interpretation

without assigning any cogent reason.

The petitioner further relies upon the proceedings

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

44/49

relating to Dr. Mirajul Haque, who was similarly appointed

before the publication of the 2017 Statutes. It is submitted that

although an initial office order dated 10.08.2023 sought to

repatriate Dr. Mirajul Haque by treating his appointment as

tenure based, the Board of Management, in its 36th Meeting

held on 08.08.2024, reconsidered the matter and resolved that

the tenure provisions introduced under Clause 13.2(c) would

operate only prospectively and would not apply retrospectively

to appointments made prior to publication of the Statutes.

According to the petitioner, this decision clearly

demonstrates that the University itself had accepted the

prospective operation of the 2017 Statutes. Therefore, adopting

an entirely contrary interpretation only in the case of the present

petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination without any rational

basis.

The respondents have attempted to explain this

apparent inconsistency by asserting in their Counter Affidavit

that Annexure-P/9 is fabricated and that the Board of

Management had in fact approved the repatriation of Dr. Mirajul

Haque. They have relied upon Annexure-R/K in support of such

contention. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner

that irrespective of the rival claims regarding the correctness of

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

45/49

Annexure-P/9, the official communication issued by the

University itself vide Memo No.1622 dated 05.03.2021

(Annexure-P/7) unequivocally records that the petitioner's

appointment would continue to be governed by the legal regime

existing at the time of his appointment. The respondents have

merely stated that the said communication was "not in

consonance" with the Statutes, but no statutory provision has

been pointed out authorising the University to retrospectively

alter the service conditions of an employee already appointed.

The learned counsel further submits that the decision impugned

in the present proceedings also suffers from procedural

arbitrariness. The petitioner was never issued any notice before

altering his service conditions. No show cause notice was

served, no explanation was called for and no opportunity of

personal hearing was granted before directing his reversion from

the office of Director, Extension Education.

The respondents have sought to justify the absence

of hearing by contending that repatriation in terms of the

Statutes did not require observance of the principles of natural

justice.

The petitioner disputes the said submission by

contending that the impugned action was not a routine

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

46/49

administrative transfer but involved civil consequences. The

petitioner had continuously held the office of Director,

Extension Education for over thirteen years, his lien over his

previous post had admittedly expired, and the impugned

decision substantially altered his service position and status. In

such circumstances, compliance with the principles of natural

justice became an indispensable requirement.

The learned counsel also submits that the impugned

decision appears to have been taken without complete

consideration of all relevant materials. Respondent No.1,

namely the State Government, has specifically stated in its

Counter Affidavit that the Agriculture Department had not

received the agenda papers of the 37th and 38th Meetings of the

Board of Management within the prescribed period. It has

further been stated that the Department had requested

postponement of the meeting and that no representative of the

Agriculture Department participated in the 38th Meeting.

Reference has been made to Letter No.1298 dated 01.09.2025,

Letter No.4248 dated 15.09.2025, Letter No.4527 dated

09.10.2025 and Letter No.86 dated 09.01.2025, copies whereof

have been annexed by Respondent No.1. It is therefore

submitted that even the procedure followed by the Board of

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

47/49

Management before taking the impugned decision was itself

questioned by the Agriculture Department.

The learned counsel therefore submits that the

impugned action cannot be sustained merely because it was

approved by the Board of Management. Every administrative

decision of the Board must satisfy the requirements of legality,

fairness, reasonableness and equality. A decision which departs

from the University's own earlier interpretation without rational

justification, treats similarly situated officers differently, ignores

relevant materials and adversely affects an employee without

affording an opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained in law.

The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the Board of

Management is the highest statutory authority under the Bihar

Agricultural University Act, 2010 and was fully competent to

take the impugned decision after obtaining legal opinion. It is

submitted that the decision was taken uniformly to implement

Clause 13.2(c) of the Statutes and to bring the University in

conformity with the ICAR Model Act and UGC guidelines.

According to the respondents, no discrimination has been

practised against the petitioner, his pay and service benefits

remain fully protected and he has merely been repatriated to the

equivalent post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

48/49

The respondents further deny that the petitioner was entitled to

any prior hearing, contending that the impugned order merely

implements the tenure provisions applicable to the post and does

not amount to any punitive action.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is

satisfied that the impugned action of the University is arbitrary,

discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of the Bihar

Agricultural University Act, 2010, the applicable Statutes and

the principles of natural justice. The respondents have failed to

justify the inconsistent application of the statutory provisions or

the departure from their own earlier stand.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the

petitioner and against the respondents.

23. In view of the findings recorded on the issues

framed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the impugned decision of the Board of Management treating the

petitioner's appointment as a tenure appointment by applying

Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes,

2010 to an appointment made in the year 2011 cannot be

sustained in law. The action of the respondent University in

issuing Office Order dated 19.09.2025 bearing Memo No. 753,

whereby the petitioner was repatriated to an alleged equivalent

Patna High Court CWJC No.16483 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026

49/49

post, and the consequential Office Order dated 19.09.2025

bearing Memo No. 754 authorising another officer to discharge

the duties of Director, Extension Education, is held to be

arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to the Bihar Agricultural

University Act, 2010 and the applicable Statutes, and violative

of the principles of natural justice.

24. Accordingly, both the aforesaid office orders

are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the

petitioner to the post of Director, Extension Education with all

consequential service benefits and continuity of service within a

period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a

copy of this judgment.

25. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

kundan/-

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 23.06.2026

Uploading Date 01.07.2026

Transmission Date NIL