Patna HC Quashes Madarsa Board Order That Defied Its Own Appellate Authority's Decision on Clerk Appointment
The Patna High Court quashed a Bihar State Madarsa Education Board memo that re-rejected a clerk's appointment after its own appellate authority had already set aside the original cancellation order.
The Patna High Court has allowed a writ petition filed by Md. Asghar Hussain, a candidate who topped the merit panel for the post of Clerk at Madarsa Faizul Uloomi Kawai Banghara, Samastipur (Madarsa No. 145), after years of administrative stonewalling. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, sitting singly, quashed Memo No. 1569 dated 17 December 2025 issued by the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, which had once again rejected the petitioner's appointment claim despite a binding appellate order dating from October 2024 that had already nullified the original cancellation. The court directed the Board to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment within eight weeks, and prohibited any fresh re-adjudication on the merits of his selection.
The Appointment, the Cancellation, and the Appellate Victory
The Bihar State Madarsa Education Board granted permission by Letter No. 2778 dated 31 August 2020 to the Managing Committee of Madarsa No. 145 to fill vacant sanctioned posts after advertising in newspapers and following prescribed procedure. The Board itself nominated experts by Memo No. 2644 dated 3 December 2021 to participate in the selection process.
Around 60 candidates applied for the post of Clerk. Nineteen appeared for an interview on 27 December 2021, conducted in the presence of the Selection Committee, the Madarsa's president and principal, and the Board-nominated experts. A final panel of three candidates was drawn up; Hussain secured first position. The Managing Committee, at its meeting on 2 January 2022, resolved to recommend his appointment and forwarded approximately fifty documents to the Board for approval. A selection letter dated 6 January 2022 formalised this unanimous recommendation.
The trajectory changed sharply after Respondent No. 8, Aisha Khatoon — who had not featured in the final merit panel at all — complained to the Board's Chairman. The Chairman issued a short notice by Letter No. 389 dated 14 January 2022 requiring the petitioner and others to appear on 19 January 2022. The petitioner could not appear that day. Without any effective hearing and without examining the validity of the selection, the Chairman issued Memo Nos. 513 and 514 dated 19 January 2022, rejecting Hussain's recommendation and directing the appointment of Aisha Khatoon in his place.
Hussain initially challenged Letter No. 389 before the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 1676 of 2022, filed on 25 January 2022, unaware at the time of the 19 January order. This Court, by order dated 21 November 2022 as corrected on 31 January 2023, relegated him to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 28 of the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board Act, 1981. He accordingly filed Appeal No. 8 of 2023 before the Special Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Department of Education, Bihar.
The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal by reasoned order dated 8 October 2024 and set aside Memo Nos. 513 and 514. That order was never challenged before any superior forum and thus attained finality.
The Board's Refusal to Comply and the Failed Review Bid
Despite the appellate order, the Board took no consequential action. Hussain submitted representations to the Board's Secretary and Chairman on 14 October 2024, 28 October 2024, and 7 March 2025. He followed these with a representation to the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, on 19 February 2025, and another on 7 April 2025. Even the Director, Secondary Education, by Letter No. 687 dated 13 March 2025, directed the Board's Secretary to report what action had been taken in compliance with the appellate order. The Board remained silent.
Aisha Khatoon then moved a review petition before the same Appellate Authority seeking rehearing of the order dated 8 October 2024. The Director, Mass Education-cum-Special Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, issued Letter No. 1 dated 9 April 2025 directing all parties to appear on 7 May 2025 for a rehearing of Appeal No. 8 of 2023. This letter is what prompted the present writ petition, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8585 of 2025.
The Appellate Authority itself eventually recognised its own jurisdictional limit. By order dated 31 July 2025, it rejected Aisha Khatoon's review petition, recording that no statutory power of review or rehearing is available under the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board Act, 1981. The operative direction in that order required the Board to “take action in accordance with law.”
Instead of granting approval to Hussain's appointment, the Board's Chairman issued Memo No. 1569 dated 17 December 2025. That memo re-appreciated the petitioner's recommendation on merits and once again rejected his candidature while continuing Aisha Khatoon's appointment — in effect reinstating Memo Nos. 513 and 514 that the Appellate Authority had already nullified.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Alok Kumar Sinha identified the core dispute as the Board's refusal to implement a binding appellate order and its attempt to re-examine the matter on merits — not any defect in the original selection process.
On the construction of the 31 July 2025 direction, the court held that the instruction to “take action in accordance with law” could not be read as conferring fresh adjudicatory jurisdiction on the Board to reopen the merits of Hussain's selection. The direction required only consequential administrative steps consistent with the findings already recorded by the Appellate Authority. Once Memo Nos. 513 and 514 stood set aside, the Board could not indirectly re-establish Aisha Khatoon's appointment, which the appellate order had nullified.
On the Board's claim that it was entitled to reconsider the matter independently, the court rejected this squarely. A statutory authority exercising administrative powers cannot sit in appeal over a binding order of its own superior appellate authority. Permitting such a course would render the appellate remedy illusory and would strike at the foundation of the doctrine of finality of quasi-judicial decisions. The court found that Memo No. 1569 did precisely what is impermissible: it re-appreciated the petitioner's recommendation on merits and revived, in substance, the orders already set aside. The principle applied was direct — what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved indirectly.
The court also accepted the petitioner's submission on the autonomy of recognised minority educational institutions. Relying on this Court's judgments in CWJC No. 1692 of 1982 (reported at 1985 PLJR 837, affirmed by the Supreme Court at (1994) Supp. (20) SCC 509), and in CWJC No. 1041 (1985 PLJR 870) and CWJC No. 5210 of 1983 (1988 PLJR 1107), it held that the power of appointment in a recognised minority institution vests with its Managing Committee and the Board's Chairman has no authority to discard the Managing Committee's appointments and substitute appointments of his own. The selection in this case was conducted under the Board's own permission, with its own nominated experts, and no competent authority had ever recorded a finding that the process was vitiated by fraud or malpractice.
On the respondents' argument that Hussain should first exhaust the remedy of a fresh appeal against Memo No. 1569 under Section 28 of the Act, the court was equally firm. Memo No. 1569 was not an independent adjudication giving rise to a fresh cause of action. It was a direct consequence of the Board's refusal to comply with the appellate order of 8 October 2024. Relegating the petitioner to yet another statutory appeal would compel him to litigate repeatedly against orders passed in defiance of an earlier appellate decision. The court held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution exists precisely to prevent such abuse of administrative process and to ensure statutory authorities act within the bounds of their jurisdiction.
Order
The court quashed Memo No. 1569 dated 17 December 2025 issued by the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board. The Board was directed to give effect to the order dated 8 October 2024 read with the order dated 31 July 2025 passed by the Special Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 8 of 2023, and to take all consequential steps for granting approval to Hussain's appointment as Clerk in Madarsa Faizul Uloomi Kawai Banghara, Via Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur (Madarsa No. 145), as recommended by the Managing Committee. The exercise was required to be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the judgment.
The court made explicit that the Board shall not reopen or re-adjudicate the petitioner's case on merits, since all those issues stand concluded by the appellate order dated 8 October 2024. The Board's obligation is confined to granting approval to the recommendation for appointment in its true letter and spirit. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.