Patna High Court
Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administrative DepartmentversusSushma Kumari
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the expression 'Scheduled Tribe women candidates' shall be read as 'Women Backward Class'.
Summary
The State of Bihar filed a civil review of the order dated 17 April 2023 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 309 of 2022, challenging a paragraph that stated 3% of posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe women candidates. The petitioner argued that this was a typographical error and that the reservation should apply to Women Backward Class candidates. The Coordinate Bench had earlier dismissed a modification application on the ground that the issue was not a mere typographical mistake. Upon review, the Court examined the submissions of both parties and the Advocate General, and held that the expression "Scheduled Tribe women candidates" was indeed erroneous. Consequently, the Court read the phrase as "Women Backward Class". The review application was therefore disposed of, and any pending applications were also ordered to stand disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the phrase 'Scheduled Tribe women candidates' in paragraph 4 of the judgment is a typographical error.
- Whether the reservation of 3% of posts should be applied to Women Backward Class candidates instead of Scheduled Tribe women candidates.
Subjects
- reservation
- Scheduled Tribe
- Women Backward Class
- typographical error
- civil review
- modification application
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.142 of 2025
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.309 of 2022
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administrative
Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Secretary, General Administrative Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Sushma Kumari Wife of Sri Pritam Kumar, Resident of Mohalla- Mayur
Vihar Colony (Shyam Nagar) P.O. Khajpur, P.S. Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.
2. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna through its Secretary.
3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
5. The Joint Secretary-cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the State : Mr. P.K. Shahi, A.G.
Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to SC-8
For the Opposite Party/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
4 18-03-2026 The present review application has been preferred in
light of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
Patna High Court C. REV. No.142 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
2/4
in M.J.C. Case No. 1688 of 2023 arising out of L.P.A No. 309
of 2022. The modification application filed on behalf of the
petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2025, which is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“The present MJC is for modification of
the order dated 17.04.2023 passed in LPA No. 309
of 2022 in particularly paragraph no. 4. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that
Coordinate Bench has committed an error insofar as
3% of the posts are reserved for Scheduled Tribe
women candidates etc., it should have been reserved
for women backward classes. Such alteration is not
permissible in the guise of filing MJC
(Modification). Therefore, the present MJC
(Modification) is not maintainable. MJC
(Modification) is entertainable only if there is any
typographical error. On the other hand, in the
present case material information is required to be
examined. Therefore, the only remedy available to
the petitioners is in filing Civil Review.
2. At this stage, learned counsel for the
petitioners intends to withdraw the present MJC
(Modification).
3. Accordingly, MJC stands dismissed as
withdrawn.”
2. Learned Coordinate Bench, while dismissing the
aforesaid modification application, granted liberty to the
petitioner to prefer a review application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.142 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
3/4
observation made in paragraph 4 of the judgment dated
17.04.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 309 of 2022 suffers from
typographical error. The relevant part of the said judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“4. …...The learned Advocate General
also has a further submission that 3% of the posts
are reserved for Scheduled Tribe women candidates
and in that circumstance, applying 35% reservation
can only lead to such percentage being applied on
97 vacancies which essentially would work out to
34% of the total vacancies.”
4. It is further submitted that, as per the applicable
provisions, 3% of the posts are reserved for women backward
class and not for Scheduled Tribe women candidates.
5. Learned Advocate General supports the contention
advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the
parties and upon perusal of the records, the expression
‘Scheduled Tribe women candidates’ occurring in paragraph 4
of the judgment dated 17.04.2026 passed in L.P.A. No. 309 of
2022 shall be read as ‘Women Backward Class’.
7. With the aforesaid modification/clarification, the
present review application stands disposed of.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
Patna High Court C. REV. No.142 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
4/4
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Sachin/-
U
Checking your session…