Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi (12 November 1957 – 2 May 2020) was an Indian judge and former Judicial Member of the Lokpal of India starting 23 March 2019.

[6] Justice Tripathi enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Bihar and started practicing before the Patna High Court in 1981.

Justice Tripathi judicially determined the legal force of the term 'consultation' under Section 10(2) pertaining to the appointment of vice-chancellors in Bihar universities.

There has to be proper deliberations by producing all materials duly recorded to show that such exercise was carried out and there was application of mind with regard to all those persons who may be otherwise eligible.

They can do wee bit of service by appointing non-controversial, competent, honest persons with impeccable reputation having due diligence to run the affairs of the Universities specially on the post of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors by adhering to the requirements of the law as envisaged under Section 10(2) of the Act and getting rid of ad hoc arrangements.

In fact we all owe it to them.In Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar,[21] similar instances of corruption and favour in appointments of principals in Magadh University were challenged before the Patna High Court.

Challenging this notice before the Patna High Court, the matter was heard by the Single Judge bench comprising Justice Tripathi.

Analyzing the relevant information on record, he observed that there was absolutely no indication in the counter affidavit filed by the Housing Board that any demand after re-fixation of price was ever raised upon the Petitioner.

The Petitioners challenged a circular issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, specifically the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, which stated that the tribes or sub-tribes belonging to the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), whose names had been indicated and who inhabited the geographical areas indicated therein were barred from availing the facility of undergoing family planning procedure by tubectomy or vasectomy etc.

In Punam Kumari v. The State of Bihar and Ors.,[25] a writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging her termination from the post of an Anganwari Sevika.

Justice Tripathi ruled in favour of the Petitioner and the order of termination was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Petitioner challenged the Notification's validity because it had a fixed multiplier of 1 for calculating the compensation for the land acquired in the rural area throughout the state.

Justice Tripathi held that the existing notification denied fair compensation to poor landowners in remote areas.

The reasoning was that the Petitioners became permanent Government employees upon completion of one year of service in the work-charge establishment based on rules incorporated in P.W.D.

The Petitioners' service was terminated on grounds of swindling money based on an order issued by the President of the respondent organization while exercising power under Regulation 33(d) of the Bye-laws of the NCCF.

He held that:The power under Regulation 33(d) is not to be usurped by the President by snatching away what is vested in a disciplinary authority which is the Managing Director in the present case.

An All India Organization having branches across the country will have some financial or disciplinary problems of this kind because of the misconduct of its employees but whether such action is an emergent situation of the kind where every other authority has to surrender its power to the President, cannot be appreciated or accepted as a cogent reason, for exercise of authority under Regulation 33(d).In Manoj Kumar v. The State of Bihar,[29] writ applications were filed by the candidates whose names did not figure in the result of the preliminary examination declared by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) for the 52nd to 55th batch.

After mass protests, the Commission declared that they could not reconduct an examination of such magnitude owing to it not being an easy exercise, and delay already caused in the recruitment process for three batches.

The Court considered contentions of the State Government that the degree of Sahityalankar was not equivalent to graduation for every purpose or whether the Petitioners had a right to be promoted on the basis of such a qualification to the Subordinate Education Cadre.

The Petitioners had been appointed as school teachers initially on the basis of matriculation as a minimum qualification, part of the Lower Subordinate Education Service.

Claiming this as a ground for discrimination, the Petitioners approached the Patna High Court for a judicial direction with regard to their right for such promotion.

An issue was raised against selection of the Petitioners leading to annulment of their appointments by the Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Supaul constituted by the State Government, on the ground that their engagement as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was not done properly.

Justice Tripathi elucidated that the status of the Petitioners as "Panchayat Teacher cannot be taken away by such adjudication by reopening the issue of an illegal engagement of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra after so many years, especially when such persons got benefit of the status by virtue of a statute or rule which has never been challenged to be arbitrary or violative of any constitutional provision."

Justice Tripathi, while addressing the question of whether the appellant had committed fraud or not, held that he was appointed based on prior experience and not on the requirement for qualification of being 8th Pass.

Justice Tripathi opined that the charges brought against the Appellant, which became the reason for his dismissal after more than 22 years of service, are a misuse, if not an abuse of power.

[34] dealt with a writ petition challenging the exercising power of the Managing Director under section 6(2) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Act (BIADA), 1974.

In this case, the Managing Director directed a large-scale cancellation of lease and repossession of the land, plant and the machinery including those allotted to the Petitioner company.

The Court unequivocally stated that "a bare perusal of the orders of termination…are under the purported exercise of powers under Section 6(2) of the BIADA Act read with the necessary amendments of 1992 as well as the 1981 Rules."

Justice Tripathi was a member of the General and Academic Councils of Chanakya National Law University (CNLU) at Patna.

The occasion was also marked by the 1st Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi Memorial Lecture on the subject "The Idea of India and the Role of the Judiciary Therein.