Patna High Court
Savita KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as premature because a statutory appeal is pending, and the petitioner must pursue that appeal.
Summary
Savita Kumari, who was selected by the committee for the post of Sahayika under the Bal Vikas Pariyojana in Dhatauli Panchayat, challenged a letter that confirmed the appointment of Pramila Devi, who had lower marks, alleging manipulation of scores with the collusion of several officials. She filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash the appointment letter and a mandamus directing her appointment. The State argued that she had already filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner, Munger Division, which was pending, rendering the writ petition premature. The petitioner contended that the appeal, filed on 07.08.2025, had not been decided. The Court held that the existence of a pending statutory appeal barred the writ petition and directed the petitioner to pursue that appeal. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging an administrative appointment is maintainable when a statutory appeal is pending before a competent authority.
- Whether the court can quash the appointment letter and direct the appointment of the petitioner in the present circumstances.
Subjects
- selection procedure
- administrative law
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
- premature petition
- statutory appeal
- appointment manipulation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3546 of 2026
======================================================
Savita Kumari wife of Ram Pravesh Kumar, resident of village Bhutoli
Malpa, Post- Bhutoli Malpa, P.S.-Chauthan, District - Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariate, Patna.
2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariate,
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Khagaria.
4. The District Program Officer, Khagaria.
5. The Child Devolvement Program Officer, Chautham, Khagaria.
6. The Mahila Supervisor, Chautham Prakhand, Khagaria.
7. The Head Master of Adarsh Madhya Vidyalaya English, Maheshkhut,
Gogari, Khagaria.
8. Smt. Pramila Devi, wife of Surendra Prasad, resident of village- Bhutoli
Malpa, Post- Bhutoli Malpa, P.S.-Chauthan, District -Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Krishna Bariar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader-04
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 16-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“For the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing
the Letter No.1335 dated 10.09.2024(Annexure-17), wherein
and whereby it was confirmed the appointment of the
respondent no.8 having less marks to the petitioner at the time
of the selection procedure but manipulating the marks of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3546 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
respondent no.-8 with connivance of the respondents no. 4 to 7
after completing the selection procedure and publishing the final
result with the connivence the Child Development Program
Officer, Khagaria and the Ladies Supervisor, Dhatauli
Panchayat, Khagaria to the post of the Sahayika under Bal
Vikash Pariyojana, Ward No.13, Kendra No. 26, Dhatauli
Panchayat, Chautham Prakhand, Khagaria against which the
petitioner was already selected by the Selection Committee,
headed by the Ladies Supervisor, Gram Sabha of Dhatauli
Panchayat, Chauthum Prakhand, Khagaria and further
commanding the respondents by issuing writ of Mandamus to
appoint the petitioner on the post of Sahayika, Dhatauli
Panchayat, Khagaria in the light of memo no. 69 dated
29.02.2020, for which the petitioner is entitled too.”
3. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State submits that vide Annexure-18 to the writ
petition, the petitioner has already preferred a statutory appeal
before the Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger and the
same is pending for adjudication, therefore, the present writ
petition is premature.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that although he has filed the appeal on
Patna High Court CWJC No.3546 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
07.08.2025, but till date, the same has not been decided by the
Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger for the reasons best
known to him.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it
appears that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending for
adjudication before the Commissioner, Munger Division,
Munger. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pursue his
appeal, which is said to be pending before the Commissioner,
Munger Division, Munger and the Commissioner, Munger
Division, Munger is obliged to decide the appeal filed by the
petitioner expeditiously.
6. The writ petition is disposed of in the
abovementioned terms.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
Sanjay/-
U
Checking your session…