Bihar Agricultural University Statutes Operate Prospectively, Can't Convert 2011 Direct Recruitment Into Tenure Appointment: Patna High Court
Image By: Siddharth Anand
The Patna High Court has held that the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010, notified in 2017, cannot be applied retrospectively to convert a substantive appointment made through direct recruitment in 2011 into a tenure appointment. The Court observed that unless a statute expressly or by necessary implication provides for retrospective operation, it is presumed to operate prospectively, particularly where vested service rights are affected.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Sinha was hearing a writ petition challenging office orders reverting the petitioner from the post of Director, Extension Education, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, to an alleged equivalent post upon treating his appointment as having come to an end after completion of a five-year tenure.
The petitioner submitted that he was initially appointed as Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor in 1991 and was subsequently promoted to the posts of Senior Scientist-cum-Associate Professor and University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist. While serving as Director, BAMETI, he applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 12 of 2011 for appointment as Director, Extension Education. It was submitted that after undergoing a regular selection process, the petitioner was appointed through direct recruitment by notification dated December 14, 2011. According to the petitioner, neither the advertisement nor the appointment notification described the post as a tenure post or prescribed any fixed term of appointment.
The petitioner further contended that when his appointment was made, the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 had not yet come into force. The Board of Management had resolved that until the new Statutes were notified, the Statutes of the erstwhile Rajendra Agricultural University would govern service conditions, under which the post of Director, Extension Education was not a tenure post.
It was also argued that although the petitioner executed an agreement upon joining, it merely required him to abide by the applicable Rules, Regulations, Statutes and the Act of the University and did not convert his substantive appointment into a tenure appointment. The petitioner further submitted that the University itself had consistently treated his appointment as substantive. It was pointed out that his lien on the previous post had been declared to have expired and that he had subsequently been granted advance increments in recognition of the higher responsibilities attached to the post of Director, Extension Education.
According to the petitioner, the University subsequently departed from its earlier stand and, relying upon Clause 13.2(c) of the Statutes notified in 2017, treated his appointment as a five-year tenure appointment before reverting him to an alleged equivalent post.
The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had challenged only the consequential office orders and not the underlying decision of the Board of Management. It was further contended that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy before the Chancellor under the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010.
Rejecting the preliminary objection, the High Court held that once the consequential office orders were under challenge, it was competent to examine the validity of the foundational decision of the Board of Management on which those orders were based.
On the principal issue, the Court examined the advertisement, appointment notification and the statutory framework governing the petitioner's appointment. The Court found that neither Advertisement No. 12 of 2011 nor the appointment notification dated December 14, 2011 described the post of Director, Extension Education as a tenure post. On the contrary, the appointment notification specifically recorded that the petitioner had been appointed through direct recruitment.
The Bench held that the agreement executed by the petitioner requiring compliance with future rules and regulations could not be construed as authorising retrospective alteration of the very nature of his appointment. The Court observed:
“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.”
The Court further reiterated that the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010 came into force only upon their publication in the Official Gazette in 2017 and contained no provision making them retrospectively applicable to appointments already made. The Bench observed that Clause 13.2(c) merely prescribed the mode of future appointments to the posts of Directors and Deans and did not indicate that existing appointments would stand converted into tenure appointments.
Holding that the petitioner's service conditions continued to be governed by the statutory framework existing in 2011, the Court ruled that Clause 13.2(c) could not retrospectively alter the nature of his appointment. The Court also found that the respondents had failed to establish the existence of any legally equivalent post to that of Director, Extension Education. It further noted that the petitioner's lien had already expired and that the impugned orders had been passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing despite the serious civil consequences involved.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Board of Management's decision insofar as it directed the petitioner's repatriation, as well as the consequential office orders dated September 19, 2025. The Court directed the respondents to restore the petitioner to the post of Director, Extension Education with all consequential service benefits and continuity of service within two months.
Case Title: Dr. Ravindra Kumar Sohane v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16483 of 2025
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Senior Advocate; Mr. Raushan; Ms. Shreyashi Raj; and Mr. Chinmay Harsh Karn.
For the State: Mr. Additional Advocate General (5) and Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG-5.
For the Other Respondents: Dr. K.N. Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Shailendra Kumar; Mr. Sriram Krishna; Mr. Amarjeet; Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha; and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha.