IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14666 of 2016

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

Zubeire Nuzhat Jahan Hyder W/o Mr. Jawed Irfan D/o Late Mr. Raza Haider,

resident of new Azimabad, Colony Sector- A, P.S.- Sultanganj, P.O.-

Mahendru, District- Patna 800006.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Human Resources

Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2.The Director, Secondary Education Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Vetnary College, Patna.

4.The District Education Officer, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Md. Fazal Rahman, Advocate

Mr. Anisur Rahman, Advocate

Mr. Md. Ehsanur Rahman, Advocate

Mr. Nooren Rahman, Advocate

Mrs. Ibrat Adnan, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Madhaw Pd. Yadav- GP-23

Mr. Arvind Kumar, AC to GP-23

For B.S.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

CAV JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 22.08.2025

Date of Judgment: 13.02.2026

Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. Madhaw Pd. Yadav, learned G.P.-23, representing

the respondent-State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for

the B.S.S.C.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has

prayed for the following relief(s):-

“1(A) For quashing order bearing memo no.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

2/29

613 dated 12.07.2016 issued under the signature of

the Director, Secondary Education Department of

Education Patna by which the proposal of approval

of appointment/recognition of the service of the

petitioner was rejected on the ground that the

petitioner had not teacher training certificate B.Ed

degree at the time of appointment as Assistant

teacher in Minority School despite the fact that the

petitioner continued in service for 13 years.”

3. The brief facts of the case is that in pursuance to an

advertisement dated 30.03.2003 (Annexure-1), the petitioner

had applied for the post of Lady Assistant Teacher (Science) in

Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh,

Patna. Subsequently, vide letter dated 18.06.2003 (Annexure-2),

issued by the Joint Secretary (Admn), Ayub Urdu Girl’s High

School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh, Patna, the petitioner was

called to appear in the written examination and the interview for

the post of Lady Assistant Teacher (Science) in Ayub Urdu

Girl’s High School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh, Patna on

07.07.2003, in which, the petitioner appeared.

4. Vide Memo No. AUGHS/224/03 (Annexure-3),

dated 15.10.2003, issued by Honorary Secretary, Ayub Urdu

Girl’s High School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh, Patna, the

petitioner was appointed on the post of Lady Assistant Teacher

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

3/29

(Physics) in Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School- cum- Inter College

Lalbagh, Patna, subject to approval of the State Government and

the petitioner joined the said post on 16.10.2003 (Annexure-

3/1).

5. The Principal, Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-cum-

Inter College, Lalbagh, Patna vide letter no. 72 dated

17.05.2006 sent a proposal to the District Education Officer,

Patna for approval of the petitioner’s appointment as Lady

Assistant Teacher (Science), Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-

cum-Inter College, Lalbagh, Patna, which was returned by the

District Education Officer, Patna, vide letter no. 1776 dated

24.07.2006 (Annexure-4), stating therein that the petitioner was

not having the requisite certificate/qualification at the time of

appointment.

6. In reply to the letter no. 1776, dated 24.07.2006,

issued by the District Education Officer, Patna, the Principal,

Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh,

Patna, vide letter dated 09.08.2006 (Annexure-5), again sent the

proposal to the District Education Officer, Patna for approval of

the petitioner’s appointment as Lady Assistant Teacher

(Science), in Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-cum-Inter College,

Lalbagh, Patna stating therein that the petitioner was appointed

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

4/29

by the Managing Committee on the basis of recommendation

made by the Selection Committee constituted for the

appointment, as in the school, there was requirement of a

Science Teacher having computer knowledge/degree and after

following due procedure, the petitioner was appointed on the

post of Lady Assistant Teacher (Science).

7. The District Education Officer, Patna vide letter no.

1001 dated 18.06.2011 (Annexure-10) sent a proposal to the

Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna for approval

of the petitioner’ appointment as Lady Assistant Teacher

(Science) in Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-cum-Inter College,

Lalbagh, Patna. Subsequently, the Bihar Staff Selection

Commission sent the said proposal to the Director, Secondary

Education, for approval of the petitioner’s appointment as Lady

Assistant Teacher (Science) in Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-

cum-Inter College, Lalbagh, Patna, which was rejected by the

Director, Secondary Education vide Memo No. 613 dated

12.07.2016 (Annexure-11), on the ground that the petitioner was

not having requisite qualification/degree at the time of her

appointment as Lady Assistant Teacher (Physics) in Ayub Urdu

Girl’s High School-cum-Inter College, Lal Bagh, Patna.

8. The aforenoted rejection order dated 12.07.2016 is

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

5/29

under challenge in the present writ petition.

9. Respondent no.2/the Director, Secondary

Education, Government of Bihar, Patna has filed a counter

affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that the appointment of the

petitioner was made contrary to the advertisement dated

30.03.2003 and the provisions laid down under Section 18 of the

Bihar Non-Govt. Secondary Schools (Taking Over,

Management and Control) Act, 1981, which prescribes the

educational qualification of the teachers of nationalized

Secondary School, which has been made applicable also to the

teachers of Minority Secondary Schools. It has further been

stated in the counter affidavit that in an identical matter, this

Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7923 of 2013 (Asha Rani Vs. the State of

Bihar & Ors.) was pleased to dismiss the case of the petitioner

therein on the ground that the petitioner was not holding the

degree of B.Ed at the time of appointment.

10. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission,

Patna/respondent no.3 has also filed a counter affidavit, wherein

it has been stated that as per the provisions made in the Bihar

Non-Government Secondary School (Management and Control)

Amendment Act, 2011, the power regarding the approval of

appointment of teachers of Minority Schools is vested with the

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

6/29

Director, Secondary Education and the Director, Secondary

Education, Government of Bihar has rejected the proposal for

approval of appointment of the petitioner as Lady Assistant

Teacher (Science) on the ground that at the time of appointment,

the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification.

11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits

that pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.03.2003, the

petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) in

Ayub Urdu Girls High School-cum-College, participated in the

written test and interview held on 07.07.2003, and was

recommended by the duly constituted Selection Committee. On

the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee,

the Managing Committee issued appointment letter dated

15.10.2003 (Annexure-3). The petitioner joined service on

16.10.2003 and continuously discharged her duties sincerely for

13 years. At the time of her appointment, the petitioner

possessed Master’s degree in Computer Science, which was the

highest qualification among all candidates. She subsequently

acquired the required B.Ed. qualification in 2005.

11.1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the Principal of the institution forwarded proposals

for approval of the petitioner’s appointment in the prescribed

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

7/29

proforma to the District Education Officer, Patna. However, the

District Education Officer, Patna rejected the proposal solely on

the ground that the petitioner was not having the requisite B.Ed.

qualification at the time of her appointment.

11.2. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel

for the petitioner that the impugned rejection order (memo no.

613 dated 12.07.76 / Annexure-11) completely ignores the fact

that the petitioner had worked uninterruptedly for 13 years; she

obtained the requisite training (B.Ed.) in 2005, long before the

State initiated the present proceedings and the law laid down by

the Hon’ble Court in several judgments that subsequent

acquisition of training fulfills the mandate of Section 4(2) of the

Act.

11.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of

his contention, has relied on the Judgment reported in PLJR

2003 (2) 303 (Chhathi Mishra @ Sri Chhathu Mishra & Anr.

Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), to contend that if a teacher

acquires the requisite qualification during the pendency of the

LPA, his/her appointment cannot be invalidated, as the essential

requirement of Section 4(2) stands complied with. Also relied

on is the Judgment dated 18.07.2016 passed in L.P.A. No. 136

of 2015 (Mr. Subhash Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.)

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

8/29

to contend that requirement of teachers training, as provided

under the Rules, has been done away with by the Human

Resources Development Department resolution dated 5

th

of

March, 1991, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary,

Human Resources Development Department, Bihar in the name

of Governor, Bihar under Memo No. 10/v 3-56/88 (part) E-116.

Accordingly, there was no requirement of teachers training

qualification at the time the petitioner was appointed on

15.10.2003.

11.4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the petitioner stands on identical footing as the

teachers in the above-mentioned judgments. She acquired B.Ed.

in 2005, and, therefore, approval of her service must be granted

with all consequential benefits.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents submit that the petitioner claims approval of her

appointment as Assistant Teacher in Ayub Urdu Girls High

School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh, Mahendru, Patna on the

basis of appointment letter dated 15.10.2003, issued by the

Managing Committee. However, such appointment is contrary

to the mandatory statutory requirement prescribed under Section

18 of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

9/29

Over, Management & Control) Act, 1981, which makes

applicable the same qualifications for the teachers of minority

secondary schools as are applicable to the teachers of

nationalized secondary schools. In both categories, B.Ed. degree

is one of the essential qualifications. The appointment of the

petitioner was made in clear violation of statutory provisions as

well as the conditions of the advertisement (Annexure-1 of the

writ petition) and hence the appointment of the petitioner is

quite illegal since very inception.

12.1. Learned counsel for the respondents further

submit that identical issue has already been decided by this

Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 7923 of 2013 (Asha Rani vs.

State of Bihar & Ors.), wherein the writ petition was dismissed

on the ground that the petitioner therein did not possess the

B.Ed. degree at the time of appointment.

12.2. It is further submitted that the judgment passed

in LPA No. 136 of 2015 (Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar)

is not applicable to the present case, as the relaxation referred

therein was granted by an executive instruction as contained in

memo no. 116 dated 05.03.1991 which is applicable only to

taken-over schools where qualification for B.Ed. was relaxed in

specific circumstances and in view of the aforesaid facts and

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

10/29

circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is

liable to be dismissed.

12.3. The respondents in support of their contentions

have relied on the following judgments:-

i. Prit Singh vs. S.K. Mangal, 1993 Supp (1)

SCC 714

ii. Hosiar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1993 SCC

2606

iii. AIR 2010 SC 1937 – Fuljit Kaur vs. State of

Punjab

iv. AIR 2006 SC 898 – K.K. Bhala vs. State of

M.P.

v. AIR 2014 SC 746 – Basawaraj & Ors. vs.

Special Land Acquisition Officer

13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

contesting parties.

14. It appears that advertisement dated 30.03.2003

was issued by Honorary Secretary, Ayub Urdu Girl’s High

School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh, Patna inter alia indicating

that Lady Assistant Teacher (science) is wanted with minimum

qualification of B. Sc (Hons.) preferably in Physics with B. Ed.

degree. Upon participation by the petitioner in terms of the

aforesaid advertisement, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher

(Physics) in Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-cum-Inter College,

Lalbagh, Patna on 15.10.2003, vide Memo No. AUGHS/224/03

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

11/29

(Annexure-3). Subsequently, the proposal for approval of the

appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher (Physics) in

Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh,

Patna was initiated by the School Management Committee,

which was rejected by the Director, Secondary Education vide

impugned order dated 12.07.2016, contained in Memo No. 613

(Annexure-11) on the ground that the petitioner did not have the

required teacher training qualification. The aforesaid rejection

order dated 12.07.2016 has been challenged by the petitioner in

this writ petition contending that there is no requirement of

teacher training qualification for appointment as Assistant

Teacher (Physics) in Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-cum-Inter

College, Lalbagh, Patna. Alternatively, an argument has been

made that the petitioner, after her appointment as Assistant

Teacher (Physics), has obtained teachers training qualification

on subsequent date and that proposal for approval of her

appointment as Assistant Teacher (Physics) in Ayub Urdu Girl’s

High School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh, Patna could not have

been rejected. In support of aforenoted two fold contentions, the

petitioner has primarily relied on two decisions of this Court,

first as reported in PLJR 2003 (2) 303 (Chhathi Mishra @ Sri

Chhathu Mishra & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and the

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

12/29

second decision rendered in L.P.A. No. 136 of 2015 (Subhash

Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.).

15. It is an admitted position that the petitioner, at the

time of her appointment, did not have the teachers training

qualification. The appointment of Assistant Teacher (Physics) in

Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh,

Patna is regulated by the Bihar Non-Government Secondary

Schools (Taking Over, Management & Control) Act, 1981

(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1981) and the Rules framed

thereunder, namely, Bihar Government Secondary School

(Service Conditions) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the

Rules of 1983).

16. Advertisement dated 30.03.2003, issued by

Honorary Secretary, Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-cum-Inter

College, Lalbagh, Patna would go to show that the educational

qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Teacher

(Physics) was graduate with B.Ed. The advertisement, therefore,

had clearly specified that along with the educational

qualification of graduate, preferably in physics, there was also

requirement of candidate possessing B.Ed. Degree. The

essential educational qualification prescribed in the

advertisement dated 30.03.2003 is found to be in consonance

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

13/29

with the educational qualification prescribed for appointment of

Assistant Teacher under Rule 4(C) of the Rules of 1983, which

inter alia provides that for appointment of Assistant Teacher, the

essential qualification is bachelors degree in Arts, Science and

Commerce from a recognised university and B.Ed/diploma in

Education/Diploma in Teaching/.C.T. awarded by the

recognized University, a Board recognised by the State

Government or the Education Department of the State

Government or an equivalent teacher training qualification

declared by the State Government.

17. Thus there is no dispute on the facts that in the

advertisement and the Rules of 1983 framed in pursuance of

Section 9 of the Act of 1981, the essential qualification required

for appointment of Assistant Teacher in Ayub Urdu Girl’s High

School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh, Patna is graduate with

teachers training qualification mentioned therein such as B.Ed.,

Diploma etc. and that the petitioner was not in possession of

teachers training qualification at the time of her appointment.

18. In the backdrop of the aforenoted facts, what

arises for determination by this Court is whether the rejection of

the proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as

Assistant Teacher (Physics) in Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

14/29

cum-Inter College, Lalbagh, Patna by the Director, Secondary

Education, Government of Bihar on the ground that the

petitioner does not possess the teacher training qualification, is

justified?

19. Law regarding possession of prescribed

qualification at the time of appointment is no longer res integra

and is well settled by now that the person appointed to a post

must possess the prescribed educational qualification for the

post at the time of appointment. In this regard, a reference may

be made to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the

case of Dr. Prit Singh Vs. S.K. Mangal & Ors. reported in

1993 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 714, wherein in

paragraph no. 13 thereof, it has been held as under:-

“13. ………….If he was not eligible for

appointment in terms of the prescribed

qualifications on the date he was appointed by the

Managing Committee subject to the approval of the

Vice Chancellor, then later he cannot become

eligible after the qualifications for the post were

amended. As such we are in agreement with the

view expressed by the High Court, that on the date

of the appointment the appellant did not possess the

requisite qualifications and as such his

appointment had to be quashed.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

15/29

20. Similarly, in the case of Hoshiar Singh Vs. State

of Haryana & Ors reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2606

it has been held in paragraph no. 11, which reads as under

“Once it is held that the standards for

physical fitness which have been laid down in

the advertisement could be so prescribed, the

matter of relaxation of the said standards

would depend on the terms of the

advertisement. The advertisement and the

corrigendum are silent about relaxation of the

said standards by the Board. In these

circumstances, the Board could not, on its

own, relax the standards of physical fitness as

mentioned in the advertisement and the

corrigendum”.

21. Likewise, in the case of District Collector and

Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School

Society, Vizianagaram Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, reported

in 1990 (3) SCC 655, wherein the minimum essential

qualification mentioned in the advertisement was second class

postgraduate and the respondent who had third class post-

graduate degree was appointed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

disapproving the said appointment, has held as under:-

“It must further be realised by all concerned that

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

16/29

when an advertisement mentions a particular

qualification and an appointment is made in

disregard of the same, it is not a matter only

between the appointing authority and the appointee

concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had

similar or even better qualifications than the

appointee or appointees but who had not applied

for the post because they did not possess the

qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It

amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons

with inferior qualifications in such circumstances

unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are

relaxable. No court should be a party to the

perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.”

22. Similarly, in the case of K.K. Bhalla Vs. State of

M.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 898,

Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 60 observed as under:-

“60. The development plan was prepared in

terms of the 1973 Act and the Rules framed

thereunder. Change of user, we have not been

shown, is permissible under the Act or the Rules.

In the absence of such a provision and/or without

following the statutory requirements therefor, if

any, the State in exercise of its executive power

could not have directed that lands meant for use

for commercial purposes may be used for

industrial purposes.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

17/29

23. The other two decisions relied on by the learned

State Counsel rendered in the case of Fuljit Kaur (Supra) and

Basawaraj (Supra) are for the proposition that illegality

committed earlier cannot be perpetuated inasmuch as equality

under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive

concept and it does not envisage for negative equality.

24. It, thus, becomes clear from the aforenoted

decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the person

appointed must possess the requisite essential educational

qualification at the time of appointment and there can be no

relaxation to such prescription unless it has been specifically

provided either in the advertisement or in the Rules and such

relaxation can be made strictly in terms of provisions of

relaxation contained either in the advertisement or in the Rules.

In the absence of any such provision for relaxation in the

advertisement or in the Rules, possession of requisite

educational qualification at the time of appointment is sine qua

non for the appointment to be valid and legal.

25. In the light of aforenoted legal provision, the

impugned order dated 12.07.2016, issued by the Director,

Secondary Education, Government of Bihar rejecting the

proposal for appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

18/29

(Physics) in Ayub Urdu Girl’s High School-cum-Inter College,

Lalbagh, Patna on the ground of lacking of teachers training

qualification prescribed in the advertisement as well as in the

Rules at the time of her appointment, does not appear to suffer

from any legal infirmity.

26. After having found that the impugned order dated

12.07.2016 does not appear to suffer from any legal infirmity,

the two decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Subhash

Kumar (Supra) and Chhathi Mishra (Supra) relied on by the

petitioner, need to be considered and discussed to find out as to

whether the two decisions rendered by this Court are of any help

to the petitioner.

27. The appellant of L.P.A. No. 136 of 2015, namely

Subhash Kumar, was appointed on the post of Teacher in

Economics in Sri Guru Govind Singh Girls High School, Patna

City pursuant to advertisement and selection made by duly

constituted selection committee vide appointment letter dated

14.11.2003 and pursuant thereto, the appellant joined the service

on 18.11.2003. As the appellant did not possess B.Ed. Degree,

the appellant, after taking due permission of the management

committee of the school, obtained B.Ed. degree in the year 2010

from an affiliated unit of Magadh University duly recognized by

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

19/29

the N.C.T.E. Proposal moved for approval of the appointment of

the appellant as Assistant Teacher in economics in Sri Guru

Govind Singh Girls High School, Patna City was rejected vide

Memo No. 390, dated 30.03.2013 by the Director, Secondary

Education, Government of Bihar, Patna on the ground that the

appellant did not possess B.Ed. Degree and was also overaged at

the time of his initial appointment. The appellant, challenging

the aforenoted order dated 30.03.2013 rejecting the proposal for

approval of his appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher,

filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 14248 of 2013, which

was disposed of by learned Single Judge vide order dated

30.07.2013 directing for approval of the service of the appellant

with effect from 25.10.2010. The order of learned Single Judge

was put to challenge in L.P.A. No. 136 of 2015. The Hon’ble

Division Bench of this Court, while recognizing the statutory

requirement under Rule 14 (C) of the Rules of 1983 for

appointment of teacher that there is a requirement of teachers

training qualification such as B.Ed., Diploma in

Education/Diploma in teaching in addition to bachelor degree in

Arts, Science and Commerce from a statutory University, has,

however, by relying on resolution dated 5

th

of March, 1991,

issued by the department of Human Resources Development

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

20/29

under the signature of Commissioner and Secretary, Human

Resources Development Department on behalf of the Governor

of Bihar, held that the appointment of the appellant by the

Managing Committee dated 14.11.2003 was in accordance with

law and cannot be said to be irregular much less illegal. The

Court accordingly held that the appointment of the appellant

was in accordance with prescribed Rules and therefore, the

appellate Court set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge

by holding that the appellant is entitled for approval of his

services with effect from the date on which he joined the school

pursuant to his appointment by the Managing Committee of the

school with all consequential benefits. While holding as above,

the Hon’ble Division Bench was of the view that the

requirement of B.Ed. degree from a recognized institution as

stipulated in Rule 4(C) of the Rules of 1983 has been

waived/ended by the resolution of the State Government

containing Memo No. 116 dated 5

th

of March, 1991.

28. In holding that the requirement of B.Ed. degree

from a recognized institution under Rule 4(C) of Rule, 1983 has

been waived/ended, the Hon’ble Division Bench appears to

have relied on Clause 3(a) of the resolution dated 5

th

of March,

1991, wherein it has been provided that the compulsion of

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

21/29

training in teacher’s appointment is abolished. The resolution

dated 5

th

of March, 1991, which abolishes the compulsion of

training in teacher’s appointment has been quoted by the

Hon’ble Division Bench in the judgment rendered in the L.P.A.

For appreciation of the nature and character of the resolution

dated 5

th

of March, 1991, the same is also reproduced herein as

quoted in the judgment passed in the L.P.A. which reads as

under:-

“Human Resources Development Department

Resolution

Patna, dated 5th March, 1991

Subject:-Arrangement for training during service period.

The Government and Non-Government teachers

training colleges are being run within the State of Bihar.

These training colleges are of two type-The matriculate

students get admission in one type of college and

graduates are admitted in other type of college. Two years

training is imparted in the first type of college and nine

months training is imparted in the second type colleges.

The candidates who have obtained training from these

colleges, are appointed in the schools upto the level of

Primary to Secondary schools and at the same time, they

are appointed in teachers training colleges too. The

matriculation trained candidates are appointed in Primary

and Middle Schools, as per their class on the basis of their

success in examination after preparing a panel of

appointment. Hence, there is a race for admission in these

training colleges. The admission in the Government

Teacher Training Colleges (Matric and Graduation) is

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

22/29

taken as per merit list but corrupt practices are prevalent in

the Non-Government Teachers Training Colleges due to

which these have turned into a source of monetary gain.

2. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the

State Government has promulgated an Act which contains

provision that no any institution or person can establish

any type of Teachers Training College without obtaining

prior approval of the Government. At the same time, the

State Government has laid conditions for

recognition/affiliation of such intuitions, vide Notification

No. -1107 dated 25/11/87 of the Department; but it has not

made any difference at all.

3. Hence, in the aforesaid context, the State

Government has taken following decision to remove

corruption in the Non- Government Teachers Training

Colleges and improve the level of training there:-

(a) The compulsion of training in teacher’s appointment is

abolished.

(b) After appointment, training shall be imparted in

Government Training Colleges during service period.

(c) The procedure for appointment to the post of teacher,

shall be based on merit.

(d) The concerned Education Controller shall make

immediately necessary modification in the rules regarding

appointment in the cadre and obtain approval of the

Administration, which shall come into force within the

whole State from the date of issuance of the resolution.

Order:- It is ordered to publish its resolution in the

special issue of Bihar Gazette.

By the order of Governor, Bihar

Sd/- R. K. Srivastava

Commissioner and Secretary

Human Resources Development Department, Bihar

Memo No. 10/v 3-56/88 (part) E-116 Patna, dated 5

th

March, 1991 ”

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

23/29

29. On perusal of the resolution dated 5

th

of March

1991, issued by the Human Resources Development

Department, it appears that the said resolution dated 5

th

of

March, 1991 is in the nature of executive instruction relating to

arrangement for training during service period. In the

circumstances narrated in the resolution dated 5

th

of March,

1991, the compulsion of training in teacher’s appointment has

been abolished by clause 3(a) thereof. Whatever be the nature of

clause 3(a) of resolution dated 5

th

of March, 1991 abolishing the

compulsion of training in teacher’s appointment, the said

resolution dated 5

th

of March, 1991, which is in the nature of

executive instruction cannot override the statutory prescription

of the requirement of teachers training qualification prescribed

under Rule 4(C) of the 1983 Rules, which has been made in

pursuance of Section 9 of the Act of 1981. This is so in the light

of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the

executive instruction cannot override the statutory Rules or Act

as the case may be.

30. In the case of B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. Vs. State

of Mysore and Ors. reported in 1966 SCC OnLine SC 7,

Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 5 has held as follows:-

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

24/29

“5. ………..It is hardly necessary to mention

that if there is a statutory rule or an act on the

matter, the executive must abide by that act or

rule and it cannot in exercise of the executive

power under Article 162 of the Constitution

ignore or act contrary to that rule or act.”

31. In the case of Jaiveer Singh Vs. State of

Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1584,

Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph no. 49

thereof as follows:-

“49. It can thus be seen that it is a trite law that the

Government cannot amend or supersede statutory

rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules

are silent on any particular point, it can fill up the

gaps and supplement the rules and issue

instructions not inconsistent with the rules already

framed. It is a settled proposition of law that an

authority cannot issue orders/office

memorandum/executive instructions in

contravention of the statutory rules. However,

instructions can be issued only to supplement the

statutory rules but not to supplant it.”

32. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of

Baroda & Anr. Vs. G. Palani & Ors. reported in (2022) 5 SCC

612 in paragraph no. 14 thereof has observed as follows:-

“14. First we come to the rigour of the

Regulations. The Regulations have statutory

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

25/29

force, having been framed in exercise of the

powers under Section 19(2)(f) of the 1970 Act

and are binding. They could not have been

supplanted by any executive fiat or order or Joint

Note, which has no statutory basis. The Joint

Note of the officers also had no statutory force

behind it and could not have obliterated any of

the provisions of the 1970 Act or the existing

Regulations. Thus, Joint Notes could not have

taken away the rights that were available under

the 1995 Pension Regulations to the Officer.”

33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.

Ranjith Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1009 has observed in

paragraph no. 19 thereof as follows:-

“19. xxxxx

…….The State Government has certainly

issued various executive directions from time to

time for appointment under the direct recruitment

quota providing reservation to in-service

candidates to the extent of 20%; however, the

rules were never amended till 21.11.2017. It is a

well settled proposition of law that executive

instructions cannot supplant the statutory rules.

They can supplement/clarify the statutory rules.

In the present case, the executive instructions

issued from time to time have in fact supplanted

the statutory rules and such a process is unheard

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

26/29

of in the field of service jurisprudence.”

34. In view of the aforenoted settled position of law

that the executive instruction cannot override the statutory Rules

or the Act, the decision rendered by Hon’ble Division Bench of

this Court in L.P.A. No. 136 of 2015 cannot come to rescue of

the appellant in view of the admitted position of fact that the

appellant at the time of her appointment did not possess the

teachers training qualification as is required to be possessed

under Rule 4(C) of the 1983 Rules.

35. In the case of Chhathi Mishra (supra) relied on

by the petitioner, the petitioners therein, who did not possess the

requisite training qualification, had preferred the writ petition

being C.W.J.C. No. 1645 of 1983 seeking direction to approve

their services as Assistant Teachers. The said writ petition was

allowed by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to

approve the services of the petitioners and to pay their salaries

and other emoluments from the date of the notification. They

were further directed to grant facility for their training giving

them at least one chance to obtain B.Ed. degree with a condition

that if the petitioner do not avail the opportunity and thus do not

obtain B.Ed. degree, it will be open to the government to

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

27/29

terminate the service of the petitioners. The order of the learned

Single Judge was put to challenge by the State of Bihar in

L.P.A. No. 24 of 1984, which was allowed by an order dated

01.11.1999, whereby the direction given by the learned Single

Judge was set aside. The petitioner filed Civil Review No.24 of

2000 seeking review of the order dated 01.11.1999, passed in

L.P.A. No. 24 of 1984 by contending that the petitioners

acquired requisite qualification of training during the pendency

of the L.P.A. in the year 1986, but that fact was not brought to

the notice of the Court as the petitioners did not give such

instruction to their lawyer, which resulted in passing of the order

dated 01.11.1999 in L.P.A. No. 24 of 1984. The review petition

was decided on 8

th

of January, 2003 by recalling the order dated

01.11.1999 passed in LPA. No. 24 of 1984 by holding that from

the counter affidavit of the State, it appears that the petitioners’

services have already been approved on 29.06.1984 during

pendency of the L.P.A. and that the petitioners have also

acquired requisite qualification and thus fulfilled the condition

envisaged in Section 4(2) of the Take Over Act and, therefore,

nothing stands against them to invalidate their appointment.

36. The aforenoted Civil Review No. 24 of 2000 was

allowed recalling the order dated 01.11.1999, passed in L.P.A.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

28/29

No. 24 of 1984 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that

case that services of the petitioners were already approved on

29.06.1984 during pendency of the L.P.A. which fact was not

brought to the notice of the L.P.A. Court and that the petitioners,

in the meantime had acquired requisite qualification fulfilling

the condition envisaged in Section 4(2) of the Take Over Act. It

was in the aforenoted peculiar facts of the case that the review

petition filed by the petitioner was allowed. The Court, in the

review petition, has not laid down any law of universal

application which can be applied in the present case in favour of

the petitioner that the acquisition of requisite qualification

during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court would

entitle validation of the earlier appointment made dehors the

Rules. The decision rendered in the aforenoted review petition is

clearly distinguishable from the present case and is also of no

assistance to the petitioner.

37. For the reasons and the discussions made

hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant writ petition requiring

any interference on the order dated 12.07.2016, passed by the

Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna

rejecting the proposal for approval of appointment of the

petitioner as Assistant Teacher (Physics) in Ayub Urdu Girl’s

Patna High Court CWJC No.14666 of 2016 dt.13-02-2026

29/29

High School-cum-Inter College, Lalbagh, Patna on the ground

of not possessing the teacher training qualification as prescribed

under the Rules.

38. The writ petition stands dismissed with no order

as to cost.

Amrendra/-

(Nani Tagia, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 22.08.2025

Uploading Date 13.02.2026

Transmission Date