Patna High Court
Rajesh Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner must first approach the competent authority, the District Deputy Commissioner, with a fresh representation before any appointment can be ordered.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking his appointment as Swachhta Pravekshak (Supervisor) under the Lohia Clean Mission Bihar, alleging that the selection of another candidate (Respondent No.11) violated the prescribed guidelines which prioritize experienced Swachhagrahis. He claimed the authorities had ignored his seniority and selected an ineligible person without following the rules. The State contended that the District Deputy Commissioner (DDC), Respondent No.5, is the competent authority to decide such appointments. The Court held that the petitioner must first file a fresh representation before the DDC, who is required to consider it and issue a reasoned order after hearing the aggrieved parties. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to approach the DDC within 30 days and for the DDC to decide within 60 days thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Swachhta Pravekshak under the Lohia Clean Mission Bihar guidelines.
- Whether the writ court can direct the appointment of the petitioner in lieu of the selected candidate.
- Who is the competent authority to decide the appointment – the Court or the District Deputy Commissioner.
Subjects
- Swachhta Pravekshak
- appointment
- selection criteria
- administrative law
- writ jurisdiction
- representation
- Lohia Clean Mission Bihar
- Bihar Rural Development Department
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5951 of 2026
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar Yadav Son of Nageshwar Prasad, Resident of Village-
Tejpurwa, P.S.-Chhapra Mufassil, Panchayat-Tenua, District-Saran at
Chhapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate-cum- Chairman District Water and Cleanliness
Committee, Saran at Chhapra.
5. The District Deputy Commissioner (DDC)-cum- Vice Chairman District
Water and Cleanliness Committee, Saran at Chhapta.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar (Chhapra), Saran.
7. The Block Development Officer-cum- Block Cleanliness Officer, Sadar
Chhapra, Saran.
8. The Block Coordinator Sadar Chhapra Block, District-Saran.
9. The Panchayat Secretary Tenua Panchayat, P.S.- Chhapra Mufassil, District-
Saran.
10. The Mukhiya, Panchayat Raj Tenua Panchayat, P.S.-Chhapra Mufassil,
District-Saran.
11. Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ramesh Singh, Resident of Vilalge-
Mahato Mussahari, P.S.- Chhapra Mufassil, District-Saran at Chhapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramadhan Singh, GP-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-04-2026
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Counsel for the State.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5951 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
2/4
present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
“I. That this is an
application for issuance of an
appropriate writ/ writs,
direction/directions, directing the
Respondents to select the petitioner on
the post of Swachhta Pravekshak
(Supervisor) under Lohia Clean
Mission Bihar in place of Respondent
No.11, who have been selected on the
post of Swachhta Pravekshak
(Supervisor) without full fill the
criteria for the said post under Guide
Line even though Respondent No.11
has not worked as Swachhagrahi and
first priority given to active
Swachhagrahi with more experience.
Petitioner is more experienced
Swachhagrahi in Tenua Panchayat, he
has to be given first priority in
selection of Swachhata Pravekshak
under Guideline but his (Petitioner)
candidature has been ignored by
Respondent Nos.9 and 10 with illegal
consideration and incompetent
ineligible person (Respondent No.11)
selected on the post of Swachhata
Pravekshak (Supervisor) by violating
entire rules and norms of law. And
Patna High Court CWJC No.5951 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
3/4
may kindly be disposed of the writ
application in light of cover matter
bearing CWJC No.12696 of 2025
titled as Suman Singh @ Suman
Kumar Singh versus the State of Bihar
disposed of on 09.09.2025.
II. And further for any other
relief/ reliefs for which petitioner is
found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned Counsel for the State raised preliminary
objection and submits that the petitioner is guided by Lohiya
Swachha Abhiyan in which respondent No.5, the District
Deputy Commissioner (DDC)-cum-Vice Chairman District
Water and Cleanliness Committee, Saran at Chhapra, is the
competent authority.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he
has filed representation (Annexure-P/7), which is pending
before respondent No.5, the District Deputy Commissioner
(DDC)-cum-Vice Chairman District Water and Cleanliness
Committee, Saran at Chhapra.
5. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition
is disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh
representation, along with a copy of this order, before
Respondent No. 5, namely, the District Deputy Commissioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.5951 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
4/4
(DDC)-cum-Vice Chairman, District Water and Cleanliness
Committee, Saran at Chhapra, within a period of 30 days from
today. Upon receipt of such representation, Respondent No. 5
shall consider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order,
after affording an opportunity of hearing to all persons who may
be aggrieved by the decision, within a period of 60 days
thereafter.
6. It is made clear that the period of 90 days shall be
counted from the date on which the appearance of all concerned
parties is completed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…