(Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 2474 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8031 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No. 38980 of 2019), decided on February 11, 2026
State of Bihar and Others __________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Madan Mahto ____________________________________ Respondent.
With
Civil Appeal No. 2475 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8032 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No. 423 of 2021)
With
Civil Appeal No. 2476 of 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8033 of 2026)
(Arising out of Diary No. 57001 of 2025)
With
Civil Appeal No. 2477 of 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8034 of 2026)
(Arising out of Diary No. 57003 of 2025)
With
Civil Appeal No. 2478 of 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8035 of 2026)
(Arising out of Diary No. 57004 of 2025)
With
Civil Appeal No. 2480 of 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8037 of 2026)
(Arising out of Diary No. 57516 of 2025)
With
Civil Appeal No. 2479 of 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8036 of 2026)
(Arising out of Diary No. 57028 of 2025)
Civil Appeal No. 2474 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8031 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No. 38980 of 2019); Civil Appeal No. 2475 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8032 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No. 423 of 2021); Civil Appeal No. 2476 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8033 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No. 57001 of 2025); Civil Appeal No. 2477 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8034 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No. 57003 of 2025); Civil Appeal No. 2478 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8035 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No. 57004 of 2025); Civil Appeal No. 2480 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8037 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No. 57516 of 2025); and Civil Appeal No. 2479 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8036 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No. 57028 of 2025)§
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Rajesh Bindal, J.:—
1. Initially only SLP(C) Diary No. 38980 of 2019 was listed before this Court in which notice was issued on 02.12.2019 in that Petition as well as in the application seeking condonation of delay of 611 days in filing thereof. Subsequently, SLP(C) Diary No. 423 of 2021 was listed before this Court on 29.10.2021 along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 1,051 days in filing the Petition, challenging the order passed in one of the Letters Patent Appeals i.e. L.P.A. No. 1524 of 2010, which was disposed of in a batch of seven Letters Patent Appeals by the High Court.
2. When the matter was taken up by this Court for hearing on 12.08.2025, this Court passed the following order:
“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on verification of records it was noticed that out of seven matters decided by the High Court, the petitions were filed only in two cases before this Court. In five other matters decision was taken to file petitions and even the instructions were also issued to a counsel but somehow the petitions have not been filed.
2. He seeks four weeks adjournment to seek further instructions.
3. List the matter on 23.09.2025”
3. Thereafter the State woke up from slumber, and five other petitions were filed in this Court challenging the order passed in bunch of appeals, which was challenged in the earlier two petitions. There was delay in filing the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions to the tune of 2781-2784 days. Those were filed when this Court had a put a query regarding status of other appeals. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on a number of occasions to enable the petitioner/State to furnish details about all the similar cases in which the services of the employees appointed in various Class III and Class IV posts, were terminated.
4. Vide additional written submission dated 22.01.2026 the learned counsel for the petitioner/State provided the details of various cases. Paragraphs 7 to 14 thereof are reproduced hereunder:
“7. The break-up of the categorization of cases by these Committees is as follows:
Table No. 1: List of cases on terminated Employees put in categories
| Category | Five-Man Committee | Four-Man Committee | 2nd Five Man Committee | Total |
| Forged | 358 | 63 | – | 421 |
| Illegal | 228 | 94 | 2* | 324 |
| Irregular | 91 | 21 | – | 112 |
| Sufficient documents/records were not provided hence case could not be verified for these individuals by the Committee | 67 | 67 | ||
| TOTAL | 924 | |||
*Note: 2 Cases of Illegal Appointments was identified by the subsequent Five-Man Committee
In this regard, a true copy of the List of 91 Cases falling in the Irregular Category identified by the Five-Man State Enquiry Committee is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-A.
A true copy of the List of 228 Cases falling in the Illegal Category identified by the Five-Man State Enquiry Committee is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-B.
A true copy of the List of 358 Cases falling in the Forged Documents Category identified by the Five-Man State Enquiry Committee is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-C.
8. It may be noted that the Four-Man State Enquiry Committee considered and identified a total of 179 Cases, i.e., 63 Forged Document cases, 94 Illegal, and 21 Irregular. In addition to this, there was 1 Case wherein documents could not be verified hence he was kept out of the purview of the Inquiry. A true copy of the List of 179 Cases considered and identified by the Four-Men State Enquiry Committee is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-D.
9. Further, there are currently a total of 157 cases pending with respect to candidates whose services were terminated, however, they were not identified by the State Level Committees. These Employees were terminated on account of being appointed either fraudulently or by an incompetent Authority, and de hors the terms and conditions provided in the Recruitment Rules dated 03.12.1980 of the General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar. A true copy of the List of 157 pending cases that were not identified by the State Level Committees, along with details of their respective litigations and reason for termination is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-E.
10. It may be noted that a total of 146 Employees were regularised whose services had been terminated on account of irregularity. Vide Letter No. 1117(4) dated 20.09.2007, and Letter No. 1371(4) dated 27.08.2008, a total of 112 Employees’ services were regularised (in terms of the findings of irregularity by the initial 5 Man and 4 Man Committees), and subsequently services of another 34 Employees were regularized vide Letter No. 709(4) dated 04.05.2012 pursuant to directions passed vide Order dated 11.02.2010 in the batch of LPA No. 1623/2009 and connected LPAs. In the said LPA batch, the Division Bench of the High Court was pleased to place the matter of all the contesting Respondents/Employees before the One-Man Committee of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Sinha, which Committee then looked into the cases and identified 34 cases of Employees necessitating regularization.
11. It is further submitted that with respect to the candidates whose services were terminated due to their being placed in the forged and illegal categories by the Committees, a total number of 117 cases are currently pending final adjudication, cumulatively, before the Hon’ble High Court and this Hon’ble Court. A true copy of the List of 117 Cases of termination of service wherein the candidates have challenged the termination and are pending adjudication before the High Court and this Hon’ble Court are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-F.
12. As for disposal of cases and cases having attained finality, the following table depicts the disposal of cases:
Table No. 2: List of Cases Disposed of
| Case Type | Forum | Status | No. of Cases |
| SLP (Civil) | Supreme Court | Disposed of | 92 |
| LPA | High Court | Disposed of vide Order dated 24.09.2014 passed in the State of Bihar v. Madhu Kumari batch | 101 |
| Disposed of vide Order dated 12.07.2011 passed in the State of Bihar v. Kirti Narayan Prasad Batch | 1 | ||
| Disposed of vide Order dated 12.07.2019 passed in the State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma batch | 1 | ||
| Disposed of vide Order dated 11.02.2010 passed in the State of Bihar v. Sohan Roy batch | 114# | ||
| Civil Writ (CWJC) | High Court | Disposed of vide Order dated 06.10.2009 passed in the Om Prakash v. State of Bihar batch | 318 |
| TOTAL | 627 | ||
#Note: This is batch of LPA No. 1623/2009 and connected LPAs, wherein the Division Bench of the High Court was pleased to place the matter of all the contesting Respondents/Employees before the One-Man Committee of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Sinha, which Committee then looked into the cases and identified 34 cases of Employees necessitating regularization.
A true copy of the List of 92 Cases disposed of by this Hon’ble Court are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-G.
A true copy of the List of 217 Cases disposed of by the High Court in LPAs are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-H.
A true copy of the List of 318 Cases disposed of by the High Court in Civil Writs are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-I.
13. Notably, there appears to currently be only 1 Candidate/case whose termination order had been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court and was upheld by this Hon’ble Court on Technical grounds. The case of Shri Fuldev Yadav was allowed vide Order dated 14.08.2025 passed in SLP (C) No. 22872/2025 (arising out of LPA No. 468/2022 in CWJC No. 17382/2019). A true copy of the Order dated 14.08.2025 passed in SLP (C) No. 22872/2025 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-J.
14. It is lastly stated that in the case of State of Bihar v. Bhola Prasad Rai (Diary No. 57516/2025) pending before this Hon’ble Court, the Respondent i.e., Shri Bhola Prasad Rai’s services were terminated on account of Forged Documents. Specifically, vide Letter No. 1240 dated 26.06.2001 issued by the Civil Surgeon Office, Madhubani, it was found that Bhola Prasad Rai’s Appointment Letter No. 2333 dated 31.12.1988 was not issued to him, but instead was issued in favour of a certain Bhogendra Yadav. However, it may also be clarified and noted that it has now been ascertained and clarified by the Petitioners that the case of Shri Bhola Prasad Rai was not placed before any Committee despite which it was placed among a batch of cases pertaining to the 5 Man and 4 Man Committees.”
5. When for the sake of clarity, the learned counsel for the petitioner/State was asked to meticulously co-relate all the cases pertaining to the appointments, he was unable to do so.
6. Be that as it may, as far as the Special Leave Petitions inquestion are concerned, we are proceeding to decide the same.
7. As we have briefly noticed, the following table will depict the delay in filing of seven SLPs listed before this Court. At the cost of repetition, it is mentioned that five of the SLPs have been filed after this Court had put a specific query to learned counsel for the petitioner/State to explain as to why the common order passed by the High Court in seven LPAs was not challenged qua five of those, when the common issue was involved therein.
| S. No. | CAUSE TITLE | DELAY | IMPUGNED ORDER |
| 1. | The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Madan Mahto, SLP(C) D. No. 38980 of 2019 | 611 days | LPA No. 612 of 2016 |
| 2. | The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Dashrath Sah & Ors., SLP(C) D.No: 423 of 2021 | 1051 days | LPA No. 1524 of 2010 |
| 3. | The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Bhola Prasad Rai SLP(C) D. No. 57516 of 2025 | 2784 days | LPA No. 1542 of 2010 |
| 4. | The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Suresh Prasad Suman SLP (C) D. No. 557001 of 2025 | 2781 days | LPA No. 1518 of 2010 |
| 5. | The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Rohitesh Kumar SLP(C) D. No. 57004 of 2025 | 2781 days | LPA No. 1556 of 2010 |
| 6. | The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Baji Nath Yadav SLP(C) D. No. 57003 of 2025 | 2781 days | LPA No. 1774 of 2010 |
| 7. | The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar SLP(C) D. No. 57028 of 2025 | 2781 days | LPA No. 1502 of 2010 |
8. Considering the fact that Three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Bihar v. Kirti Narayan Prasad1 had already set aside the appointment of the candidates who were either found to be illegally appointed or whose appointment was based on forged documents, to avoid any discriminatory treatment and also the fact that some of the cases are still pending before the High Court, in our opinion, the delay in filing the SLPs deserves to be condoned, however, subject to imposition of costs.
8.1. As far as S.L.P.(C) Diary No(s).38980 of 2019 and 423 of 2021 are concerned, the delay in the aforesaid cases is condoned subject to imposition of costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in each of the SLPs. Insofar as five remaining SLPs are concerned, the delay is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand) in each of the five SLPs.
8.2. Out of the above cost 50% shall be paid to the respondents in the present SLPs, and the remaining 50% of the cost shall be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.
8.3. The amount shall be directly deposited in the bank accounts of the respondents in the SLPs and also in the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, as mentioned below. Needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from today.
| Name of Fund | Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund |
| Bank Name | Canara Bank |
| Branch | South Block, Defence Headquarters, New Delhi – 110011 |
| IFSC Code | CNRB0019055 |
| Account No. | 90552010165915 |
8.4. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order on the following email id for information:
acws.cw.281b@gmail.com
8.5. Needless to say that the State shall be at liberty to recover the costs, imposed by this Court, from the guilty officer(s)/official(s) on account of whom delay is caused in filing the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions before this Court.
9. Leave granted.
10. The State is before this Court impugning the common order passed by the High Court2 whereby a bunch of intra-court appeals3 were dismissed. The challenge before the High Court was to the Single Judge order whereby a bunch of Writ Petitions was allowed vide common order dated 06.10.2009. Vide aforesaid order, the enquiry report dated 29.05.2007 impugned before the High Court was quashed. Consequently, the termination orders of the employees were quashed, and the State was directed to reinstate them in service with consequential benefits.
11. The facts of the case in brief are as under:
11.1. The writ petitioners had joined the service of the State of Bihar as Class III or Class IV employees in primary health centres. The State Government, realising that large-scale irregularities were committed in the appointments by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officers concerned, scrutinised all the appointments.
11.2. A total of 924 cases were scrutinised by the State Government. Of these, 421 appointments were found to be based on forged documents, 324 were found to be illegal, and 112 were found to be irregular. A total of 67 cases could not be decided because sufficient documents/records were not provided.
11.3. Out of the above, 112 appointments found to be irregular, along with an additional 34 cases, were regularised via Letter No. 709(4), dated 04.05.2012, pursuant to directions passed by the High Court vide order dated 11.02.2012 in a batch of LPA No. 1623/2009 and connected matters.
11.4. Of the 924 appointments scrutinised by the State Government, 745 appointees were found to be illegal or based on forged documents. They were terminated. The said terminations were challenged before the High Court by filing writ petitions.
12. It is not a matter of dispute that in some of the cases which came up to this Court, a three-Judge Bench in the Kirti Narayan Prasad’s case (supra) had upheld termination of the employees whose appointment was either found to be illegal or based on forged documents. In the cases in hand also the allegation against the respondents is similar. It was also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant/State at the time of hearing that some of the cases are still pending before the High Court.
13. Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, and to avoid any discriminatory treatment to similarly situated parties before the court, in our opinion, the impugned order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside. The matters are remitted back to the High Court for consideration afresh along with other cases which are already pending there.
14. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
15. However, solely for the purpose of furnishing complete information correlating all cases, a report is to be submitted to this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant/State within four weeks from today. The lead matter be listed ‘For Submitting Report’ before this court after four weeks.
———
1 (2019) 13 SCC 250; 2018 INSC 1123
2 High Court of Judicature at Patna. 1
3 LPA No. 612 of 2016, LPA Nos. 1502, 1518, 1524, 1542, 1556, and 1774 of 2010.
§ 2026 INSC 190
