Patna High Court
Archna KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that the interlocutory application is not maintainable and the writ petition is infructuous, leading to its disposal.
Summary
The petitioner, Archna Kumari, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate her as MBK and award back wages after her removal on 18-12-2024. During the pendency of the petition, a fresh advertisement led to the appointment of a new person to the post, prompting the petitioner to file Interlocutory Application No.1 seeking removal of that appointee, who was not a party to the original petition. The Court observed that the IA sought relief against a non‑party, Sujit Kumar, and therefore could not be entertained. Consequently, the IA was rejected. The Court further held that the writ petition had become infructuous as the relief sought (reinstatement after removal of a new appointee) could not be granted without the new appointee being a party, and thus disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
Issues considered
- Whether an interlocutory application seeking relief against a person not a party to the writ petition is maintainable.
- Whether the writ petition for reinstatement becomes infructuous when a new appointment has been made to the contested post.
- Whether the court can grant mandamus for reinstatement under the circumstances.
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- reinstatement
- interlocutory application
- infructuous petition
- public service employment
- procedural law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6028 of 2025
======================================================
Archna Kumari W/o Krishndev Ray, R/o Village-Dharhara, P.S.-Dharhara,
District-Munger, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society (JIVIKA) through its Chief
Executive Officer, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger.
4. The District Magistrate, Munger.
5. The District Project Manager, JIVIKA, Begusarai.
6. The District Project Manager, Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society,
Munger.
7. The Block Project Manager, Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society,
Dharhara, Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prem Chand Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4: Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, AC to SC-21
For Respondent Nos.2, 5, 6 & &: Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Akshat Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 13-03-2026 Ref: I.A. No.1 of 2025
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned
Senior Counsel for the Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion
Society and learned Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance
of writ of mandamus directing the concerned respondents to
reinstate the petitioner after setting aside the order dated
18.12.2024 passed by the Block Project Manager (JIVIKA),
Patna High Court CWJC No.6028 of 2025(3) dt.13-03-2026
2/3
Dharhara, Munger vide letter No.BRLPS/ NRLM / BPIU / DHR
/68/2024-25 dated 18.12.2024 and for further direction to the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in her post as MBK with
all consequential benefits including back wages.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed
Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2025 for adding the further
relief submitting that during pendency of the writ petition fresh
person has been appointed on the said post by virtue of fresh
advertisement.
4. But from the record, it transpires that in the I.A.
the petitioner has demanded relief against Sujit Kumar S/o. Sri
Bachchu Tanti showing him as respondent No.8; whereas in the
writ petition there is no such respondent No.8 in the writ
petition. Technically speaking that petitioner by virtue of I.A.
has demanded relief against a person who is not party to the writ
petition.
5. In this view of the matter, such interlocutory
application cannot be allowed. Therefore, I.A. No.1 of 2025 is
hereby rejected.
Ref: CWJC No.6028 of 2025
6. It transpires to this Court that writ petition was filed
for reinstatement of the petitioner, but by the pleadings of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6028 of 2025(3) dt.13-03-2026
3/3
I.A. it becomes crystal clear that for the post, petitioner wants
his reinstatement after removing a new person, who has been
appointed at his place, but is not a party in the writ petition.
7. In this view of the matter, it transpires to this Court
that the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, this
writ petition is disposed off with liberty granted to the petitioner
to take appropriate remedy before appropriate forum.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
U
Checking your session…