Patna High Court
Suman Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
A writ petition is not maintainable unless the aggrieved person himself appears, and where the aggrieved person has already accepted the appointment, no relief can be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Suman Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition seeking that his daughter be appointed to a vacant Class‑III clerk post in the Saharsa judgeship on compassionate grounds, alleging that a prior court order was ignored and she was placed in a Class‑IV post instead. The petitioner argued that the court should correct the appointment letter dated 04‑09‑2024. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable because the aggrieved party – the daughter – had not appeared before the court and had already accepted the Class‑IV appointment without objection. The court examined the principle that only the person whose right is infringed may invoke the jurisdiction of the court, and noted that the daughter’s acceptance of the appointment exhausted her right to a compassionate appointment. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition for lack of maintainability and absence of any merit.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition filed by a person other than the aggrieved party is maintainable.
- Whether relief can be granted to correct an appointment when the aggrieved person has already accepted the appointment.
- Whether the court can intervene when the aggrieved party has not approached the court.
Subjects
- writ petition
- maintainability
- aggrieved person
- compassionate appointment
- public service appointment
- court jurisdiction
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7741 of 2025
======================================================
Suman Kumar Singh son of Gajendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-Lal
Kothi Naya Bazar, Ward No. -09, P.S.-Saharsa, District-Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Additional Chief Secretary Department of
Law and Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Patna.
3. The Registrar (Administration High Court of Judicature at Patna), Patna.
4. The Registrar Officer of the District and Sessions Judge District Court,
Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ramadhar Singh (GP-25)
For the Resp. nos.2 to 4 : Ms. Surya Nilambari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Respondent
nos.2 to 4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner directing the respondent authority to appoint his
daughter on sanctioned vacant post of Class-III/Clerk under the
judgeship of Saharsa on compassionate ground by making
necessary correction in the appointment letter dated 04.09.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is
true that the aggrieved person is the petitioner’s daughter but,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7741 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/3
the father has filed the present writ petition and the relief has
been demanded for petitioner’s daughter. He further submits that
there was a letter issued by this Hon’ble Court bearing Letter
No. 37377 dated 31.08.2021 (annexed as Annexure-P/6), which
has completely been ignored and the petitioner’s daughter was
appointed on Class-IV post, whereas, she was entitled to be
appointed on Class-III post.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
nos.2 to 4 raised objection with regard to the maintainability of
the present writ petition and submits that it is not the petitioner
whose right has been violated, rather, the person whose right has
alleged to be violated has not come forward before this Court.
The petitioner’s daughter has already accepted her appointment
on Class-IV post on compassionate ground with no objection
and she is continuing on the said post. Counsel further submits
that according to law, it is the aggrieved person who has to come
forward for his/her grievance and not others. Therefore, counsel
submits that this writ petition is not maintainable and fit to be
dismissed on the threshold itself.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the present contest is between the petitioner and
respondent nos.2 to 4 and State has limited role in this matter.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7741 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/3
6. After hearing the argument, it transpires to this
Court that the petitioner is not the aggrieved person, rather, the
aggrieved person according to the petitioner is his daughter. But,
the daughter has not come forward before this Court for the
relief.
7. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that no
relief could be granted to the petitioner. So far as the merit of
the case is concerned, it is admitted position that the petitioner’s
daughter has accepted her appointment on Class-IV post and she
has not raised any grievance.
8. This Court is of the view that once, the petitioner’s
daughter has accepted her appointment on Class-IV post, then in
that case, she has already exhausted her right under
compassionate appointment. As such, this Court finds that there
is no merit in this case. Hence, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U
Checking your session…