Patna High Court
Ravindra PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the matter has already been decided on merits and is barred by res judicata.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravindra Prasad, filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash the Director of Secondary Education's order dated 12‑07‑2022 that rejected his claim for reinstatement as a clerk. He relied on a prior liberty granted by the court in CWJC No. 17322 of 2016 and argued that the guidelines in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar were ignored. The State contended that the petitioner had already been adjudicated on the same issue in multiple earlier writs, including CWJC No. 2075 of 2011, where his claim was dismissed on the ground that an ad‑hoc appointment could not lead to regularisation. The court examined the earlier judgments, held that they constitute res judicata, and noted that filing a representation does not create a fresh right to maintain a writ. Consequently, the court dismissed the present petition, finding no merit for relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 12‑07‑2022 rejecting the petitioner's claim for reinstatement can be set aside by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the petitioner’s earlier determinations in CWJC No. 2075 of 2011 and other writs bar a fresh petition on the same ground (res judicata).
- Whether the filing of a representation confers a right to approach the court again for the same relief.
- Whether the principles laid down in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar are applicable to the present case.
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- res judicata
- chronicle litigant
- reinstatement
- education department
- representation
- ad‑hoc appointment
- regularisation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8978 of 2025
======================================================
Ravindra Prasad S/o Late Baidynath Prasad Sah, R/o Village- Patahi Hari,
P.S.- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan,
New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader 12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of certiorari for quashing of the office
order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the Director,
Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna brought into
the notice of the petitioner through the show cause
filed in MJC No. 569/2022 received on 03.03.2025
whereby the petitioner, came to know that the claim
of the petitioner has been rejected for
reinstatement on the post of clerk.
(ii) And for any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the
eye of law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8978 of 2025(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/5
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has moved before this Court in light of the liberty
granted by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2018 passed in
CWJC No. 17322 of 2016 (Annexure-P/12) and thereafter
moved before this Court in an MJC, wherein the order passed
therein has been challenged in the present writ petition. Counsel
further submits that his representation has been disposed of
negatively and the guidelines laid down in the Binay Kumar
Singh and Anr. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 2930 of
2009) case have not been considered.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that MJC No. 1677 of 2019 in CWJC No. 17322 of
2016, which is impugned herein, has duly considered all the
facts and circumstances. The petitioner has approached this
Court for the fifth time. Earlier, he had filed CWJC No. 2075 of
2011, which was decided on merits and dismissed.
Subsequently, he obtained an order for filing a representation,
which, according to the State, does not create any right in his
favour to maintain the present writ petition.
5. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Court
that the petitioner has approached this Court on multiple
occasions in relation to the same issue, which is as follows:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.8978 of 2025(2) dt.30-04-2026
3/5
i. CWJC No. 8784 of 2002
ii. CWJC NO. 2075 of 2011
iii. CWJC No. 7810 of 2013
iv. CWJC No. 17322 of 2016
6. It further transpires to this Court that in CWJC No.
2075 of 2011, order has been passed on merits which is as
follows:-
“2. We have perused the materials on
record and considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties. It appears that one
Baidyanath Prasad Sah was a permanent class III
employee. He was on earned leave for a period of
three months towards the end of 1990 and the
beginning of 1991. The petitioner was appointed
for a period of three months as a stop-gap
arrangement on 14.12.90 (Annexue 2). After expiry
of the period of three months, the services of the
petitioner were dispensed with by order dated
16.3.91 (Annexure 3). He was thereafter re-
appointed. In view of his officiation for the said
period of three months, his services were
regularized by order dated 5.2.93 (Annexure 5).
The Establishment Committee took a decision at its
meeting held on 27.2.93 (Annexure 6), that the
services of such persons were regularized. This
was followed by the consequential order dated
26.3.94 (Annexure 7). Thereafter show-cause
Patna High Court CWJC No.8978 of 2025(2) dt.30-04-2026
4/5
notice was issued to him to give the details of his
appointment. On a consideration of the materials
shown by the petitioner, his services were
dispensed with on the ground that there is no
provision for ad-hoc appointment for the period
during which the permanent incumbent is on
earned leave. Secondly, such ad-hoc appointment
cannot be made the basis for a regular
appointment whereafter his services were
dispensed with. The petitioner challenged the same
by preferring appeal which has been rejected by
the impugned order. It is thus evident that the
petitioner was appointed for a brief period of three
months to officiate when the permanent incumbent
was on earned leave. The learned Director has
rightly held that there is no provision for
appointment from the back-door for such a
purpose. Secondly, he is equally right in stating in
the impugned order that it cannot be the basis of
regularization of service. It appears to us that it
was not only a case of mere back-door entry, but
was much more than that. It seems to be case of
well-orchestrated and organized conspiracy to
provide permanent employment to the petitioner.”
7. After considering the case of the petitioner, and as
such, the said order operates as res judicata against him.
However, the petitioner has nevertheless obtained an order for
filing a representation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8978 of 2025(2) dt.30-04-2026
5/5
8. The petitioner has again moved before this Hon’ble
Court in CWJC No. 17322 of 2016, wherein a direction was
issued by this Hon’ble Court to consider his representation.
Subsequently, he preferred MJC No. 1677 of 2019. At the time
of passing the order, the co-ordinate Bench made the following
observation:
“The petitioner is a chronicle litigant.
He has been filing writ application after
suppressing the facts. This kind of person does not
deserve sympathy from this Court.”
9. In light of the observations made above, and
considering that the matter has already been decided on merits,
as well as upon perusal of the observations of this Court in the
MJC petition, this Court finds no merit in the present case,
accordingly, the case is dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…