Patna High Court
Dr. Ravindra Kumar MishraversusThe Bihar State University Service Commission
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The writ application is not maintainable as it seeks the same relief previously withdrawn without liberty to re‑file, and is dismissed as an abuse of process.
Summary
Dr. Ravindra Kumar Mishra filed a writ petition seeking certiorari and mandamus to set aside the final result of the Bihar State University Service Commission’s selection for Assistant Professor (Sahitya), alleging that ten marks for his research publications were illegally ignored, leading to his exclusion from interview and final selection. The petitioner claimed a vacancy existed in the unreserved category and demanded his appointment. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable because the same relief had already been sought in a prior writ (CWJC No.16039 of 2024) which was dismissed as withdrawn, and no liberty to file a fresh petition was granted. The Court examined whether a fresh petition could be entertained after a withdrawal without explicit permission and held that it could not, deeming the filing an abuse of process. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present writ application as not maintainable and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether a fresh writ petition seeking the same relief as a previously withdrawn petition is maintainable without a liberty to re‑file.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of abuse of process warrants dismissal of the petition.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- certiorari
- mandamus
- maintainability
- abuse of process
- withdrawal of petition
- higher education recruitment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1690 of 2026
======================================================
Dr. Ravindra Kumar Mishra Son of Late Liladhar Mishra, Resident of Village
and P.O. Muraitha, P.S. Jale Via Kamtaul, Ward No.-11, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State University Service Commission through the Chairman, 8th
Floor, BSEB Building (ADMIN Block), Budh Marg, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Chairman, Bihar State University Service Commission, 8th Floor,
BSEB Building (ADMIN Block), Budh Marg, Patna, Bihar.
3. The Secretary, Bihar State University Service Commission, 8th Floor, BSEB
Building (ADMIN Block), Budh Marg, Patna, Bihar.
4. Gopal Kumar Jha, having UID No.GOP05041986 SAH0031154, selected at
Sr. No. 6 under Unreserved Category in the merit list published dated
08.06.2024 in Sahitya Subject, through The Secretary, Bihar State University
Service Commission, 8th Floor, BSEB Building (ADMIN Block), Budh
Marg, Patna, Bihar 800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Adv
For the State : Mr.Anjani Kumar, Adv
For the B.S.U.S.C Res 1 to 3 Mr.Santosh Kumar Singh, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application has
prayed for grant of following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari, quashing the final result dated
08.06.2024, contained in Notice No.
B.S.U.S.C./Vig.-105/2022-534, relating to
Sahitya Subject under Advertisement No.
AP-SAHI-29/20-21, whereby the
petitioner's 10 marks for five peer-
reviewed research publications were
Patna High Court CWJC No.1690 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026
2/5
illegally ignored and the petitioner was
arbitrarily excluded from interview and
final selection is deprivation and injustice
to the petitioner as well as arbitrariness
on the part of the respondent
Commission.
(ii) To hold and declare that the action of
the authorities concerned to the
respondent Commission is erroneous in
denial of due 10 marks for research
publications.
(iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus, directing the respondent
authorities to declare the petitioner
successful and consider him for
appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor (Sahitya) under Advertisement
No. AP-SAHI-29/20-21 as out of 31 posts
in Sahitya Subject only 30 seats has been
filled by the eligible candidates and one
seat in unreserved category to which the
petitioner belongs is still vacant.
(iv) For grant of any other relief(s) to
which the petitioner may be found entitled
to in the facts and circumstances of this
case.
3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 objects to the maintainability of the
present writ application on the ground that, for seeking the same
relief, the petitioner had earlier also filed writ application vide
CWJC No. 16039 of 2024 which was dismissed by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024. The
order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.1690 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026
3/5
11.11.2024 in CWJC No. 16039 of 2024 is quoted herein below
for needful.
“ Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned AC to SC-7 and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
State-University Service Commission.
Learned counsel for the
petitioner, after arguing vehemently for
some time, seeks permission to withdraw
the writ application.
Permission is accorded.
Accordingly, the instant writ
application is dismissed as withdrawn.”
4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.
1 to 3 submits that, in the aforesaid writ application, the
petitioner had argued his case and, upon failing to satisfy the
Court, the petitioner prayed for withdrawing the case, which
was permitted to be done by the Court. He further submits that
no liberty was sought by the petitioner to file a fresh writ
application and neither any liberty was granted by the Court
while passing the order dated 11.11.2024.
5. In such view of the matter, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that the
petitioner cannot be permitted to maintain the present writ
application for seeking the same relief.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while
responding to the objection raised by the respondent nos. 1 to 3
Patna High Court CWJC No.1690 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026
4/5
insists on addressing this Court on the merits of the case. He
further submits that, since in the first round of litigation, the
case of the petitioner was not considered on merit therefore, he
should be permitted to make submissions on merits of the
present case.
7. Considering the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the present
writ application is clearly not maintainable for seeking the same
relief for which the petitioner had earlier come before this Court
vide CWJC No. 16039 of 2024, which was dismissed as
withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note
that while withdrawing the writ application CWJC NO. 16029
of 2024 vide order dated 11.11.2024, the petitioner neither
sought any liberty to file a fresh writ petition nor was any such
liberty granted by this Court.
8. In such view of the matter, the petitioner has
clearly abused the process of this Court by filing the present
writ application. The insistence on the part of learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner to address this Court on merit
cannot, therefore, be accepted.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is left
with no other option than to dismiss the present writ application
Patna High Court CWJC No.1690 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026
5/5
as not maintainable with the cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited
by the petitioner in Bihar State Legal Services Authority, for
repeatedly insisting to hear the case on merit.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
N.K/-
U
Checking your session…