Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Kumari RenukaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The petitioners, being fence sitters, are not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, two women who had applied for Angan Bari Supervisor posts under the Integrated Child Development Scheme, sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to appoint them, relying on a 2019 Division Bench order in LPA No. 923 of 2018 that suggested vacancies should be filled if still existing. The Court examined the earlier proceedings, noting that the Division Bench had not issued a mandatory direction but merely indicated that the authorities could consider the claim if vacancies persisted. The petitioners filed the present writ more than two years after the 2019 order without having raised any grievance earlier, rendering them "fence sitters." The Court held that fence sitters are not entitled to any relief and that no enforceable direction was given in the earlier order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to a mandamus directing their appointment under the 2019 Division Bench order.
  • Whether the Division Bench order created a binding direction enforceable by a writ.
  • Whether fence sitters can claim relief after a considerable lapse of time without having raised any grievance earlier.

Subjects

  • mandamus
  • fence sitter doctrine
  • appointment
  • Integrated Child Development Scheme
  • recruitment
  • equity
  • Bihar State Litigation Policy

Judgment

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1867 of 2021
     ======================================================
1.    Kumari Renuka Wife of Sri Upendra Kumar Ram Resident of Village and
      P.O.- Banthu Sriram, P.S.- Andar, District- Siwan.
2.   Rinku Kumari Wife of Sri Lalbabu Sah Resident of Village and P.O.-
     Sangrampur, P.S.- G.B. Nagar, District- Siwan.

                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Director, Integrated Child Development
     Scheme, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
2.   The Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran at Chapra.
3.   The District Magistrate, Siwan.
4.   The District Programme Officer (Integrated Child Development Scheme),
     Siwan.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr.Bipin Bihari Singh
     For the Respondent/s   :     Mr.Lalit Kishore ( Ag )
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR

                                ORAL JUDGMENT

      Date : 27-02-2026


                 Heard the parties.

                 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

     following reliefs:

                      “(i) …      …      ...for issuance of an
            appropriate writ/writs in the nature of Mandamus
            for commanding and directing concern authorities
            for same and similar treatment as granted by the
            Hon’ble High Court in LPA No. 923 of 2018 on
            04.02.2019 in case of Jasila Kumari & Others
            -Versus- The State of Bihar & Others on the
            ground of equity as well as in terms of the
            provision in Clause 4.C (1) of Bihar State
            Litigation Policy, 2011, which deals covered
            matters regarding same benefit in covered matters
Patna High Court CWJC No.1867 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
                                           2/5




               and necessary direction for issuance of formal
               letter of engagement as granted to Jalila Kumari,
               Arti Kumari, Neetu Kumari, Nilu Kumari and
               other similarly situated persons as law settled and
               for the other necessary relief/reliefs on the basis
               of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated
               hereinafter.”


                    3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

       pursuant to an advertisement published in daily newspaper

       “Hindustan” on 08.09.2011, for selection to the post of Angan Bari

       Supervisor, the petitioners and others applied. A merit list was

       prepared and was published on the website of ICDS on

       10.12.2011. Objections were invited to the merit list and after

       receipt of the objections, the authorities concerned proceeded to

       publish final merit list, after considering the suitability and

       seniority of the merit under the provisions contained therein and

       finally, the merit list was published on the website. The petitioners

       and others were called for interview and to participate in the

       process of counselling which was scheduled on 12.08.2012,

       wherein the petitioners were declared successful along with others,

       but some of the non-selected candidates preferred CWJC No.

       16702 of 2012 before this Court, wherein vide order dated

       14.09.2012, it was observed that if the appointments have not been

       made, the same shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.

       The writ petition was finally decided on 22.04.2013 with a
Patna High Court CWJC No.1867 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
                                           3/5




       direction that the petitioners of the writ petition to approach the

       Divisional Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner was

       directed to dispose of the representation filed by those petitioners

       within a specified time.           The Divisional Commissioner, Saran

       Division, after hearing the parties, dismissed the claim filed by the

       writ petitioners of CWJC No. 16702 of 2012, vide his order dated

       18.12.2013 and directed for initiating further process, which was

       kept in abeyance on account of the interim order passed by this

       Court in CWJC No. 16702 of 2012. When the appointments were

       not being made, the petitioners and four others filed a writ petition

       before this Court bearing CWJC No. 17596 of 2014 (Jasila

       Kumari & Others -Versus- State of Bihar & Others) which was

       finally heard and disposed of vide order dated 19.06.2018,

       dismissing the writ petition by holding that this Court finds no

       occasion to issue a direction in favour of the petitioners. Some of

       the petitioners of CWJC No. 17596 of 2014, being aggrieved with

       the order dated 19.06.2018, preferred an appeal before this Court

       which was numbered as LPA No. 923 of 2018.                The appeal

       preferred by some of the petitioners was heard by a Hon’ble

       Division Bench of this Court on 04.02.2019 and the same was

       disposed of by holding that it will be difficult for this Court to

       issue a mandamus outright, but in the event such posts are still
Patna High Court CWJC No.1867 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
                                           4/5




       lying vacant and the appellants are eligible, then in that event, it

       will be open to the respondents to consider the claim of the

       appellants in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order,

       preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of

       receipt/production of a certified copy of the order.

                    4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in

       terms of the order dated 04.02.2019 passed in LPA No. 923 of

       2018, the persons filed their respective representations before the

       concerned authorities and the petitioners may be directed to avail

       the same remedy.

                    5. The learned counsel for the State submits that the writ

       petition filed by the petitioners is thoroughly misconceived since

       no direction was given by the Hon’ble Division Bench while

       disposing of LPA No. 923 of 2018 vide order dated 04.02.2019

       and therefore the writ petition is fit to be dismissed with heavy

       cost.

                    6. Having heard the parties, I find that the Hon’ble

       Division Bench, while disposing of the writ petition, did not give

       any direction to the respondent-authorities, but only directed that if

       vacancies are still existing then the respondent-authorities to

       consider the claim of the appellants in accordance with law and

       pass an appropriate order. The petitioners, being satisfied with the
             Patna High Court CWJC No.1867 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
                                                        5/5




                    order dated 19.06.2018 passed in CWJC No. 17596 of 2014, did

                    not choose to prefer any appeal and the order of the Hon’ble

                    Division Bench was passed on 04.02.2019, even then they did not

                    raise any grievance and filed the present writ petition after more

                    than two years of the disposal of the appeal.             Therefore, the

                    petitioners being fence sitters are not entitled for any relief. The

                    law in this regard is very much settled that a fence sitter is not

                    entitled for any relief.

                                 7. I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is

                    dismissed accordingly.


                                                              (Ritesh Kumar, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR                      NAFR
CAV DATE                        NA
Uploading Date              16.03.2026
Transmission Date               NA


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.