Patna High Court
Shyam Sundar Yadav @ Shyam Sundar Prasad YadavversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous; no direction for appointment is issued.
Summary
The petitioner, Shyam Sundar Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to appoint him to a Group‑D post, claiming 1,806 days of relevant experience as per an advertisement dated 26‑27 October 2012. The selection process for the post had already been completed and other candidates were appointed. The petitioner did not challenge the selection process in the earlier contempt petitions (MJC No. 2950/2012 and MJC No. 3060/2012). The court held that, at this belated stage, it could not direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner, especially since he had not contested the selection. The petitioner was advised that he could still challenge the selection process if aggrieved. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
Issues considered
- Can the court direct appointment to a post after the selection process has been completed?
- Is the petitioner entitled to appointment on the basis of his claimed experience?
- Is the writ petition maintainable when the petitioner has not challenged the selection process?
Subjects
- appointment
- Group-D post
- experience certificate
- selection process
- writ petition
- infructuous
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20625 of 2013
======================================================
Shyam Sundar Yadav @ Shyam Sundar Prasad Yadav Son Of Sri Guli
Chandra Yadav @ Gulichandra Pd. Yadav Resident Of Village- Bharkahua,
P.O. P.S.- Barhat, District- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Administrative Personnel
Department, Bihar, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, Jamui
4. The Block Education Officer-Cum-Comptroler Kasturba Gandhi,
Residential School, Brahat Jamui, P.O. P.S. Barahat, District- Jamui
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prakash Mahto
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghwendra Kumar, SC -22
Mr. Rajesh Roy
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA
CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL ORDER
5 09-01-2026 1. Heard the Learned counsel for the
parties.
2. This Writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner for a direction to the respondents
especially the District Magistrate, Jamui/
respondent no. 3 to appoint the petitioner for the
post of Group-D considering his experience
certificate of 1806 days under the district Jamui
pursuant to the advertisement published on
26/27.10.2012, in the light of order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.20625 of 2013(5) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
16.10.2012 passed in MJC No. 2950/2012 and MJC
No. 3060/2012 and for grant of other reliefs to
which the petitioner is entitled.
3. The main contention of the Writ
petitioner is that he had 1806 days experience
and, therefore, he has filed the present Writ
petition for direction to the respondents for his
appointment on the Group -D post.
4. Pursuant to the filing of the Writ petition,
the selection process has been completed and
some other persons were also selected for the said
Group -D post. It appears that the petitioner has
not challenged the selection process. Furthermore,
from perusal of the orders passed in MJC No.
2950/2012 and MJC No. 3060/2012, it is evident
that based on the supplementary affidavit filed by
the District Magistrate, Jamui, both the contempt
petitions were disposed off. There were no such
direction in the said contempt petition as prayed
by the petitioner in the present Writ petition.
5. Taking into consideration that the
selection process has already been completed,
Patna High Court CWJC No.20625 of 2013(5) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
there cannot be any direction to the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioner for his
appointment on the Group-D post at such a
belated stage, especially when he has not
challenged the selection process.
6. However, if at all, the petitioner is
aggrieved by the action of the respondents, he is
at liberty to challenge the aforesaid selection
process.
7. The Writ petition, therefore, is dismissed
as having become infructuous.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
sunilkumar/-
U
Checking your session…