Patna High Court
Sangita KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an application before the appropriate authority.
Summary
Sangita Kumari filed a writ petition challenging the denial of her appointment, alleging that a 13-year absence should not disqualify her under Rule 236(198) of the Bihar Service Code. The District Public Grievance Redressal Cell had earlier dismissed her application on 20 September 2025, directing her to approach the appropriate authority. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ and re‑file before the proper authority, a request the respondent did not oppose. The court noted that the order of the Grievance Redressal Cell was not produced but accepted the petitioner’s claim of its existence. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application before the appropriate authority.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for the petitioner’s grievance regarding her appointment?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment despite a 13‑year absence under Rule 236(198) of the Bihar Service Code.
- Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Service Code — s. Rule 236(198)
Subjects
- writ petition
- service appointment
- Bihar Service Code
- public grievance redressal
- withdrawal of petition
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2588 of 2026
======================================================
Sangita Kumari Wife of Uttam Kumar, Resident of Mohalla- Uttam Kutir
Gali No.- 8, village- Barahpathhar Dehri, P.S- Dehri, District- Rohtas at
Sasaram, Bihar, PIN No.- 821307.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Kishanganj.
2. The District Education Officer, Kishanganj.
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Kishanganj.
4. The District Education Officer, Patna.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna.
6. The Block Education Officer, Dighalbank, District- Kishanganj.
7. The Headmaster, Upgraded Middle School, Lakshmipur Gurj Tola,
Dighalbank, District- Kishanganj.
8. The Block Education Officer, Dhanarua, District- Patna.
9. The Headmaster, Primary School, Rasalpur, Dhanarua District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. U.S.S. Singh, Government Pleader (19)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent-State.
2. During the course of argument, learned counsel for
the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph nos.
36 and 37 of the writ application, which is quoted hereinbelow
for needful:
“37. That on the application of the
petitioner the District Public Grievance
Redressal Cell has passed an order on
20.09.2025 and stated that this is the matter
of appointment and not under the purview of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2588 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026
2/3
Public Grievance Redressal Cell so her
application was dismissed with a liberty to
file an application before the appropriate
authority.
38. That vide letter No. 1685 dated
04.10.2025 the District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Kishanganj has wrote a
letter /informed to the District Public
Grievance Redressal Cell, Kishanganj
stating therein that as the petitioner was
absent for a long time about 13 years so as
per Rule 236(198) of Bihar Service Code the
petitioner is not entitled to her joining.”
3. In view of the submission made by the petitioner in
paragraph no. 37 of the writ application wherein the petitioner
has admitted that the application filed by the petitioner before
the District Public Grievance Redressal Cell stood rejected on
29.09.2025 granting liberty to the petitioner to file an
application before the appropriate authority, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this
writ application with liberty to file an application before the
appropriate authority in terms of order dated 20.09.2025 said to
have been passed by the District Public Grievance Redressal
Cell.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
Patna High Court CWJC No.2588 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026
3/3
does not have any objection to the prayer made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
5. Although in paragraph no. 37 of the writ
application, it has been stated by the petitioner that the
application of the petitioner was dismissed by the District Public
Grievance Redressal Cell on 20.09.2025 granting liberty to the
petitioner to file an application before the appropriate authority,
the order dated 20.09.2025 has not been brought on record.
However, taking note of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that such an order exists granting the
petitioner liberty to file an application before the appropriate
authority, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is accepted and the present writ application is
dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner to file
an application before the appropriate authority if such a liberty
has been granted by order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the
District Public Grievance Redressal Cell.
6. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kiran/-
U
Checking your session…