Patna High Court
Rakhi KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the waiting‑list panel had expired and the petitioner failed to move within the prescribed period.
Summary
Rakhi Kumari filed a writ petition seeking appointment to a Class‑III post of the Bihar Civil Court Staff, claiming that she was placed on a waiting‑list panel that, under the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 2009, remains valid for two years. The waiting list was prepared after the result was published on 26‑09‑2018 and expired in 2020, but the petitioner only approached the court in 2024. She relied on a prior judgment (L.P.A. No. 650 of 2022 arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 6259 of 2019) where similar candidates were appointed. The respondents argued that the waiting‑list period had lapsed and the earlier case was inapplicable because those candidates had moved before the expiry. The High Court held that the petitioner’s claim is barred by the two‑year limitation and her undue delay, and therefore dismissed the writ petition. The court also directed the State to serve the decision on the petitioner’s representation.
Issues considered
- Whether a candidate can be appointed from a waiting‑list panel after the two‑year validity period prescribed under the Bihar Civil Court Staff Rules, 2009 has expired.
- Whether the precedent in L.P.A. No. 650 of 2022 (C.W.J.C. No. 6259 of 2019) is applicable to the present petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner’s delay in filing the writ petition bars any relief.
Subjects
- waiting list
- appointment
- Bihar Civil Court Staff Rules
- writ petition
- administrative law
- delay
- precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8068 of 2024
======================================================
Rakhi Kumari Daughter of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Resident of Mohalla Garhpar,
P.S. Biharsharif, District - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Law Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Convenor, Co-ordination Committee-cum-District and Sessions Judge,
Patna.
4. Vipin Kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad Singh Resident of Village and Police
Station - Kako, District - Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, Advocate
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Archana Meenakshee (GP-6)
Mr. Rohit Singh (AC to GP-6)
For the Resp. no.3 : Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for Resp. no.3.
2. The present writ petition has been filed directing
the respondent no.3 to consider the application for appointment
of the petitioner in the light of the statutory provision as well as
the order of this Hon’ble Court passed in similarly situated
matter including order dated 19.04.2023 passed in L.P.A. No.
650 of 2022 arising out of C.W.J.C No. 6259 of 2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.8068 of 2024 dt.28-01-2026
2/5
the petitioner has participated for appointment on Class-III post
by virtue of Employment Notice No.1 of 2016 published on
07.02.2016. Counsel further submits that the final result of 1681
candidates was published, out of which some persons joined and
some didn’t joined. Counsel submits that the name of petitioner
was not in the final list, but figured in the waiting list panel.
Counsel submits that according to statute, the said waiting list
panel is valid for two years from the date of preparation.
Counsel submits that the case of petitioner has not been
considered for the selection and those persons who got lessor
marks in the waiting list were selected. In this way,
discrimination has been made by the respondent. Counsel
submits that when the petitioner aware about the said
discrimination in the appointment, she filed representation and
moved before this Hon’ble Court requesting to consider her case
in the light of the judgment/order dated 19.04.2023 passed in
L.P.A. No. 650 of 2022 arising out of C.W.J.C No. 6259 of
2019.
4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent no.3
submits that the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioner is not correct view of the matter. Counsel submits that
it is true that the waiting list was valid for two years, but
Patna High Court CWJC No.8068 of 2024 dt.28-01-2026
3/5
subsequently, by virtue of a letter issued from the competent
authority, it was decided that no person shall be appointed from
the said waiting list panel. He further submits that some of the
candidates who were listed in the waiting list panel have sued
against the said decision of the authority and they travelled their
case in C.W.J.C No. 6259 of 2019 and subsequently, in L.P.A.
No. 650 of 2022. And finally, by the decision made by the
L.P.A. Bench vide order dated 19.04.2023, by which their
selections were made. Counsel submits that the case of the
petitioner is not the same, as that of petitioners of earlier Writ &
L.P.A. In the present writ application, the petitioner sat over the
matter and never sued earlier. Only after completion of the
appointment of other persons of the waiting list in the light of
the L.P.A order, the petitioner came forward for the first time in
the year 2024. Counsel further submits that even if it has been
accepted for the sake of argument that the appointment should
be made by virtue of waiting list, but the law shall not help the
petitioner due to the reason that waiting list was only for two
years and it’s effect has been ended in the year 2020 itself. After
end of two years, the petitioner has moved, therefore, she has no
case now.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8068 of 2024 dt.28-01-2026
4/5
representation filed by the petitioner has already been disposed
off.
6. As such, learned counsel for the State is directed
to serve a copy of the decision on the petitioner’s representation
upon the counsel for the petitioner at the earliest.
7. Upon hearing the parties and going through the
documents, it transpires to this Court that the petitioner is
claiming her title by virtue of Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III
and Class IV) Rules, 2009 in which the waiting list panel was
valid only for two years. But, the said waiting list panel was
exhausted after two years from the date of publication of the
result dated 26.09.2018, and the petitioner has sued before this
Hon’ble Court in the year 2024. The decision with regard to
petitioners of L.P.A No. 650 of 2022 arising out of C.W.J.C. No.
6259 of 2019 shall not help the present petitioner in any manner,
due to the reason that those persons had moved before this
Court prior to life of waiting list panel. But, the present
petitioner has not moved during the said period.
8. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant any
relief to the petitioner, due to the reason that the petitioner sat
over the matter and not come forward within the stipulated
period of time. Such delay claimed by the petitioner cannot be
Patna High Court CWJC No.8068 of 2024 dt.28-01-2026
5/5
accepted. Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 31/01/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…