Patna High Court
Anil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The public interest litigation is dismissed as non‑maintainable because it concerns a service matter and the petitioner is not an aggrieved person.
Summary
Anil Kumar filed a public interest litigation seeking the cancellation of appointments of several administrative officers of Bihar Agriculture University, alleging that the appointments were made despite a stay order issued by the Bihar Government. The High Court examined whether a PIL is maintainable in a service matter and whether the petitioner qualifies as an aggrieved person under Article 226. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is available only to persons whose legal rights are directly affected, except in habeas corpus, quo warranto, or genuine public interest cases. The Court found that the grievance was purely a service issue and the petitioner had no personal injury or public interest element. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as a non‑maintainable PIL.
Issues considered
- Whether a public interest litigation can be entertained in a service matter concerning appointments in a university.
- Whether the petitioner is an aggrieved person entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
- Whether the writ petition falls within the exceptions to the general rule for PILs (habeas corpus, quo warranto, genuine public interest).
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- service matter
- Article 226
- aggrieved person
- appointment cancellation
- Bihar Agriculture University
- writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3641 of 2026
======================================================
Anil Kumar Son of Awadh Bihari Lal, Resident of Krishi Nagar, Ashiana
Nagar, P.S. - Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Chancellor, University of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.
4. The Vice Chancellor, Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, District-
Bhagalpur.
5. The Officer-in-Charge (Recruitment), Recruitment Cell, Bihar Agriculture
University, Sabour, District- Bhagalpur.
6. The Registrar, Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, District- Bhagalpur.
7. The Director Administration, Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, District-
Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rikesh Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 4 to 7 : Mr. Sri Ram Krishna, Advocate
For the Chancellor : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
2 18-03-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the
learned Advocate for the respondents.
2. The instant public interest litigation has been filed
for the following reliefs:-
“(i) To cancel the appointment of
administrative officer, Director works
Patna High Court CWJC No.3641 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
2/5
and Plant, Assistant Registrar and
Section Officer which is done by Bihar
Agriculture University, Sabour,
Bhagalpur despite of stay in
appointment by Bihar Government
vide letter No. 4/कृ.पप.को.-21/2019 –
3346/कृ., पटना पदनांक 13.8.2024.
(ii) For direction of proper
investigation of irregularity done in
appointment of administrative officer,
Director works and Plant, Assistant
Registrar and Section Officer by Bihar
Agriculture University, Sabour,
Bhagalpur and to stop the further
appointment immediately.
(iii) and/or any other relief
your lordships may deem fit and
proper.”
3. Having considered the reliefs prayed for by the
petitioner, it would be pertinent to observe that no public
interest litigation is maintainable, rather it is purely a service
matter. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the
appointment of the respondent no. 7, the petitioner has
appropriate remedy available under the appropriate
forum/Court, if he falls under the definition of aggrieved
persons.
4. It would also be worth useful to refer a decision
rendered in the case of Ghulam Qadir -Vrs.- Special Tribunal
reported in (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 33 where the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3641 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
3/5
Hon’ble Supreme Court in no uncertain term ruled that:
“38….the rights under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India can be
enforced only by an aggrieved person
except in the case where the writ
prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo
warranto. Another exception in the
general rule is the filing of a writ
petition in public interest. The
existence of the legal right of the
petitioner which is alleged to have
been violated is the foundation for
invoking the jurisdiction of the High
Court under the aforesaid article…..”.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra &
Ors. reported in (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 465 has been
pleased to hold as follows:-
“14. This Court has consistently
cautioned the courts against entertaining
public interest litigation filed by
unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers
do not hesitate to abuse the process of
court. The right of effective access to
justice, which has emerged with the new
social rights regime, must be used to
serve basic human rights, which purport
to guarantee legal rights and, therefore,
a workable remedy within the framework
of the judicial system must be provided.
Whenever any public interest is invoked,
the court must examine the case to ensure
that there is in fact, genuine public
Patna High Court CWJC No.3641 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
4/5
interest involved. The court must
maintain strict vigilance to ensure that
there is no abuse of the process of court
and that, “ordinarily meddlesome
bystanders are not granted a visa”. Many
societal pollutants create new problems
of non-redressed grievances, and the
court should make an earnest endeavour
to take up those cases, where the
subjective purpose of the lis justifies the
need for it. (Vide P.S.R. Sadhanantham v.
Arunachalam [(1980) 3 SCC 141 : 1980
SCC (Cri) 649 : AIR 1980 SC 856] ,
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [(2010) 2
SCC 114 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324] ,
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh
Chaufal [(2010) 3 SCC 402 : (2010) 2
SCC (Cri) 81 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 807]
and Amar Singh v. Union of India
[(2011) 7 SCC 69 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ)
560] .)
15. Even as regards the filing of a public
interest litigation, this Court has
consistently held that such a course of
action is not permissible so far as service
matters are concerned. (Vide Duryodhan
Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7
SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802 : AIR
1999 SC 114] , Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware
v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC
590 : AIR 2005 SC 540] and Neetu v.
State of Punjab [(2007) 10 SCC 614 :
AIR 2007 SC 758] .)”
emphasis supplied
Summarizing the law on the said point, the Hon’ble
Court in the Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) has held
that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has
Patna High Court CWJC No.3641 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
5/5
suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right
whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be directed to
intervene in the affairs of others.
6. In view of the afore-noted settled legal position and
the nature of the grievance, we do not find that there is any
public element involved in this matter.
Accordingly, the public interest litigation stands
dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U
Checking your session…