The Patna High Court has set aside two orders issued by Bihar Agricultural University (BAU), Sabour, that removed Dr. Ravindra Kumar Sohane from the post of Director, Extension Education and posted him to another position after treating his appointment as a five-year tenure post. Holding that the University acted unlawfully, the Court ruled that the tenure provision introduced in the University's Statutes in 2017 could not be applied retrospectively to an appointment made through direct recruitment in 2011.
Background of the Case
Dr. Ravindra Kumar Sohane was appointed as Director, Extension Education pursuant to Advertisement No. 12 of 2011 after undergoing a regular selection process. His appointment was approved by the Board of Management, and he joined the post on January 21, 2012.
More than a decade later, the University's Board of Management decided in its 38th meeting that Dr. Sohane's appointment should be treated as a tenure appointment. Based on that decision, Office Order No. 753 dated September 19, 2025, repatriated him to the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist at Mandan Bharti Krishi College, Saharsa. Another order issued the same day authorised Dr. Sushil Kumar Pathak to discharge the duties and financial powers of Director, Extension Education.
Challenging both orders, Dr. Sohane argued that his appointment had never been notified as a tenure appointment and that the 2017 Statutes introducing a five-year tenure for Directors could not be applied to appointments made years earlier.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice Alok Kumar Sinha first rejected the University's objection that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had challenged only the consequential office orders and not the Board of Management's resolution itself.
The Court observed that once the office orders affecting the petitioner's rights were under challenge, it was competent to examine the legality of the decision on which those orders were based.
"The 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 Court observed.
On the central issue, the Court found that neither Advertisement No. 12 of 2011 nor the appointment notification described the post of Director, Extension Education as a tenure post. The appointment order specifically recorded that the appointment was made through direct recruitment and placed the petitioner on probation for two years, but did not prescribe any fixed tenure.
The Court further held that Clause 13.2(c) of the Bihar Agricultural University Statutes, 2010, which introduced a five-year tenure for Directors and Deans, came into force only after publication in the Official Gazette in 2017 and contained no provision giving it retrospective effect.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that recruitment rules affecting appointments ordinarily operate prospectively unless the law expressly provides otherwise.
No Equivalent Post Shown
The High Court also rejected the University's claim that Dr. Sohane had merely been transferred to an equivalent post.
The judgment noted that the office of Director is a statutory position under the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 2010, carrying independent administrative and financial responsibilities. The University failed to produce any statutory provision showing that the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist was legally equivalent.
The Court pointed out that the University itself had simultaneously authorised another officer to exercise the Director's administrative and financial powers, demonstrating that the two posts were not identical.
Violation of Natural Justice
Another significant factor weighed against the University.
The Court found that no notice or opportunity of hearing had been given to Dr. Sohane before removing him from the office he had continuously held since 2012.
The Bench observed that the impugned action had serious civil consequences because it deprived the petitioner of the statutory office and its associated powers. In such circumstances, compliance with the principles of natural justice was necessary.
The Court also noted that the University had earlier taken the position in a 2021 communication that the 2017 tenure provision would not apply to appointments made before the Statutes came into force. Its later departure from that stand, without adequate justification, was found to be arbitrary.
Court's Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the Patna High Court held that the University's decision to treat Dr. Sohane's 2011 appointment as a tenure appointment by applying the 2017 Statutes retrospectively was legally unsustainable.
The Court quashed Office Order Nos. 753 and 754 dated September 19, 2025, directed the University to restore Dr. Ravindra Kumar Sohane to the post of Director, Extension Education with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, and ordered compliance within two months. No order was passed as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dr. Ravindra Kumar Sohane v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16483 of 2025
Judge: Justice Alok Kumar Sinha
Decision Date: 01 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
