A Single Judge Bench of Justice Girijish Kumar upheld the rejection of a candidate whose computer certificate had been obtained from an institute in Nepal.

The petitioner had applied for a licence for a vacant PDS shop and submitted a Basic Computer Degree Certificate along with his application. The certificate was issued by Golden Computer & Educational Centre at Triveni-6, Raninagar, Nawalparasi, Lumbini, Nepal. According to the petitioner, he fulfilled the eligibility criteria and stood above the selected candidate in the merit list. He contended that his candidature had been rejected solely because his computer certificate was obtained from Nepal.

The selected candidate, Sikandar Ansari, opposed the plea. He submitted that while the petitioner's certificate was issued by an institution in Nepal, his own computer certificate had been issued by an authorised institution in India.

The Court noted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bagaha, had issued an order on January 30, 2018 which required the educational qualification of a candidate to be recognised by the Government. It further noted that the petitioner was aware of this order and had previously approached the High Court over his position in the merit list and the objection concerning his computer certificate. However, he had never challenged the 2018 order itself.

The Court described the 2018 order as the “foundational stone” of the Divisional Commissioner's subsequent decision rejecting the petitioner's revision. Referring to Article 12 of the Constitution, the High Court observed:

“The plain reading of Article 12 demonstrates that the term 'Government' includes the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India…In the present case, it is specifically clarified at paragraph-13 of the order…that the educational certificates shall be recognized by the Government, which means Government of India or any local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”

The Court therefore held that the Divisional Commissioner had correctly interpreted the requirement while rejecting the petitioner's revision, since his computer certificate had been obtained from Nepal and was not from a government-recognised institution in India.

Finding no infirmity or impropriety in the Commissioner's order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Samim Mansuri v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 442 of 2025

Appearance: Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey for the Petitioner; Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, AC to AG, for the Respondents; Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur and Mr. Shivam for Respondent No. 7.

The Patna High Court has observed that the Bihar State Teachers Transfer Rules, 2026 specifically provide for preference in transfer where both spouses are in government service, and directed consideration of two teachers' requests for posting in the Patna Sadar Urban Region where their husbands work.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Kumar directed the District Establishment Committee to consider the petitioners' transfer requests under the 2026 Rules and take a decision preferably within four weeks.

The petitioners had initially approached the High Court seeking transfer within the Patna Sadar Urban Region as per the options exercised by them. They relied on the State Government's earlier transfer policy contained in a Resolution dated October 7, 2024 and had also raised their grievances through the e-Shikshakosh portal.

When the petitions were heard on March 18, 2026, the District Education Officer, Patna assured the Court that a final decision on their transfer applications would be taken in accordance with law. However, instead of deciding their transfer requests, the authorities subsequently placed both petitioners on deputation at K.B. Sahay High School, Sherullahpur, Sheikhpura, Patna, on the ground of the teacher-student ratio.

During the pendency of the matter, the State notified the Bihar State Teachers Transfer Rules, 2026. The Court noted that Rule 3(x) and Rule 4 provide that where both husband and wife are in government service or are teachers, preference should be given to posting them in the same district or place.

The State submitted that since the 2026 Rules had come into force from June 25, the petitioners' cases would now have to be considered under the new regime.

The High Court accepted this position and noted that the petitioners' husbands were working in the Patna High Court establishment. Their request for accommodation in schools within the Patna Sadar Urban Region therefore required consideration under the specific spouse-posting preference contained in the 2026 Rules. The Court observed:

“…This Court finds that there is a specific provision with regard to the preference to be given in favor of the husband and wife, if they are in government service. The very claim of the petitioners are specifically in limited bound that their husbands have been discharging duty in the institution of the Patna High Court, therefore, their cases must be considered in the light of the specific prescriptions of the Rules, 2026, and accommodate them nearby the school in the Patna Sadar Urban Region.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the authorities to place the petitioners' cases before the District Establishment Committee, which was asked to consider the matter and take an appropriate decision preferably within four weeks.

The Court further directed that the petitioners should not be disturbed from their present deputation at K.B. Sahay High School until the Committee takes a decision.

Both writ petitions were disposed of with these directions.

Case Title: Kanchan Kumari v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case Numbers: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 3516 and 3517 of 2026

Appearance: Mr. Alok Kumar, Mr. Pranav Kumar and Ms. Ruchi Acharya for the Petitioner in CWJC No. 3516 of 2026; Mr. Lokesh Kumar, AC to AG, for the Respondents. Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar for the Petitioner in CWJC No. 3517 of 2026; Mr. R.P.N. Tiwari, AC to SC-25, for the Respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order