Patna High Court
Vijay PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable because essential parties were not impleaded, and it is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the selection of candidates for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) under Advertisement No. 33/2023, filing a writ petition under Article 226. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable because essential parties, namely the selected candidates, were not impleaded. The court accepted this submission, citing Supreme Court precedents (Pravodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and B. Ramanjini v. State of A.P.) that a High Court should not decide a writ petition without the parties who would be vitally affected. Consequently, the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the petition and was given liberty to file a fresh petition with proper parties. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the absence of impleadment of the selected candidates who are vitally affected.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- writ petition
- Article 226
- maintainability
- impleadment
- public interest litigation
- selection process
- higher education
- appointment
- Bihar State University Service Commission
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18860 of 2024
======================================================
Vijay Prasad Son of Late Akhileshwar Prasad Resident of Sector- 3 SFA,
Block- 5, Flat No.- 13, Near SBI, ATM, BH. Colony, P.S.- Agamkuan,
District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chairman, the Bihar State University Service Commission, Budh Marg,
Patna-1.
3. The Secretary, the Bihar State University Service Commission, Budh Marg,
Patna-1.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 27-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. At the outset, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior
Advocate representing the Bihar State University Service
Commission opposed the maintainability of the writ petition, in
view of non impleadment of necessary party, besides the
challenge having not been made to the result issued in favour of
the successful candidates to the post of Assistant Professor
(Physics) in terms with Advertisement No. 33/2023. It is further
contended that on identical issue, the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has refused to maintain the writ petition bearing CWJC
No. 6917 of 2025, which stands affirmed by the learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.18860 of 2024(3) dt.27-01-2026
2/3
Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 640 of 2025. Taking
this Court through the aforenoted decisions, it is submitted that
the present petition is also not maintainable in view of the
settled position.
3. This Court finds substance in the submission of the
learned Senior Advocate representing the Commission.
4. It would be worth benefiting to remind the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Pravodh Verma & Ors. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC 251], wherein
the Court has observed that “….A High Court ought not to
decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
without the persons who would be vitally affected by its
judgment being before it as respondents…”
5. Similarly in B. Ramanjini & Ors. v. State of A.P.
& Ors. [(2002) 5 SCC 533], where selection of certain teachers
was challenged without impleading them, the Apex Court held
as follows:-
“19. Selection process had commenced long
back as early as in 1998 and it had been
completed. The persons selected were appointed
pursuant to the selections made and had been
performing their duties. However, the selected
candidates had not been impleaded as parties to
the proceedings either in their individual capacity
Patna High Court CWJC No.18860 of 2024(3) dt.27-01-2026
3/3
or in any representative capacity. In that view of
the matter, the High Court ought not to have
examined any of the questions raised before it in
the proceedings initiated before it. The writ
petitions filed by the respondents concerned ought
to have been dismissed which are more or less in
the nature of a public interest litigation.”
6. Confronted with such a situation, learned Advocate
for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ
petition with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition.
7. In view thereof, the present writ petition stands
dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U
Checking your session…