Patna High Court
Ravishankar RamanversusThe State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary,
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Holding
The original order dated 12‑09‑2024 is set aside as it does not bind the petitioner who was not a private respondent, and the review petition is allowed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravishankar Raman, filed a civil review challenging a September 12, 2024 order that had quashed the termination of another employee, Pramod Kumar, from the Supaul Nagar Parishad. Raman argued that the original writ order, which did not name him as a private respondent, directly affected his own appointment as Accountant and denied him a hearing. The court examined whether the original judgment could bind a person who was not a party to the writ and whether the lack of opportunity to be heard justified a review. It held that the omission of Raman as a private respondent rendered the original order inapplicable to his service rights. Consequently, the court set aside the September 2024 order and directed that Raman be made a party‑respondent before the writ petition could proceed. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a judgment in a writ petition is binding on a person not joined as a private respondent whose service rights are affected.
- Whether the failure to provide an opportunity of hearing to such a person warrants a review of the original order.
- Whether the original order should be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularity.
Subjects
- termination of service
- due process
- review of judgment
- private respondent
- service regularisation
- administrative law
- writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.331 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.192 of 2024
======================================================
Ravishankar Raman Son of Late Kamal Prasad Mandal Resident of-
Jhakhrahi Ward No.27, Supaul, District- Supaul, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban
Development and Housing, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing,
State of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Municipal Administration-cum-Joint Secretary, Urban
Development Department and Housing, State of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Project Officer-cum-Deputy Director, Urban Development and Housing,
State of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Supaul Nagar Parishad, through the Municipal Executive Officer,
Supaul Nagar Parishad, Supaul.
6. The Municipal Executive Officer, Supaul Nagar Parishad, Supaul.
7. Pramod Kumar Son of Suresh Rajak Resident of Village/Town/City- Diwari,
Parwaniya, P.S.- Saharsa, District- Saharsa (Bihar), Pin-852201.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General 13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
9 01-05-2026 This is an application for review of a final order dated
12.09.2024 passed in CWJC No.192 of 2024.
2. In the said writ petition, one Pramod Kumar was
the petitioner, who challenged his termination order from
service as an Accountant at the Nagar Parishad, Supaul by the
respondent Authority on the ground of illegality and
arbitrariness without following due process of termination and
also the procedure for regularization of service.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.331 of 2024(9) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
3. In the instant proceeding, one Ravishankar Raman
is the petitioner, who has alleged that during the pendency of the
writ petition he was appointed as the Accountant of Nagar
Parishad, Supaul. If the order passed in the writ petition is
executed, his service will be at stake without giving any
opportunity of hearing.
4. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Advocate
on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Review No.331 of 2024 that
there is sufficient reason for the petitioner to apply for a review
of the judgment to this Court.
5. The learned Advocate on behalf of the writ-
petitioner is also present present, appearance is made on behalf
of the learned Advocate for the State also.
6. I have heard the learned Advocates on behalf of the
parties.
7. The writ-petitioner does not have any answer as to
why the petitioner in the review petition was not added as a
private respondent in the writ petition, because the effect of the
judgment of the writ-Court directly and substantially affect the
right of service of the present petitioner. He was not given
opportunity to submit his case, if any.
8. It is also learnt from the submission made by the
writ-petitioner that he knew that the applicant in the review
Patna High Court C. REV. No.331 of 2024(9) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
petition was appointed three months prior to the disposal of the
writ petition. Therefore, the post from where the writ-petitioner
was terminated and which was quashed by this Court vide order
dated 12.09.2024 adversely affects the interest of the applicant
in the review petition, so he has sufficient reason/ground to file
the instant application and the impugned order passed by this
Court on 12.09.2024 is not binding upon respondent No.7.
9. In view of the above discussion, the instant
application for review is allowed. The order dated 12.09.2024
passed in CWJC No.192 of 2024 is set aside.
10. The writ-petitioner is directed to make
Ravishankar Raman, applicant of Civil Review No.331 of 2024
as a party-respondent only then the writ petition shall be heard
by the Competent Court having roster after giving due
opportunity of appearance to the applicant.
11. With the above order, the instant review
application is allowed on contest. There shall, however, be no
order as to cost.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
mdrashid/-
U
Checking your session…