Patna High Court
Amit RanjanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Division Bench dismissed the intra‑court appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s finding that the selection process was tainted by interpolations and that there was no ground to disturb the factual findings.
Summary
The appellant, Amit Ranjan, challenged a fresh selection process for a Guest Lecturer post at ITI Saharsa after a Single Judge quashed the original selection on the ground of interpolations in the merit list and ordered a new, transparent selection. The appellant argued that the markings considered interpolations were merely student notes and that, being a degree holder, he should receive preference over diploma‑holding respondents. The State contended that the Single Judge's order was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed. The Division Bench examined the limited scope of a Letters Patent Appeal, citing Supreme Court precedents that factual findings of a Single Judge are not disturbed absent perversity. Finding no illegality or perversity in the lower court’s decision, the bench dismissed the intra‑court appeal and upheld the direction for a fresh selection.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged interpolations in the merit list rendered the original selection process unfair and justified setting it aside.
- Whether the Letters Patent Appeal can overturn the factual findings of the Single Judge regarding the selection process.
- Whether the appellant, as a degree holder, is entitled to preference over diploma‑holding candidates in the selection.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100
Subjects
- selection process
- interpolation
- merit list
- intra-court appeal
- letters patent appeal
- fairness
- transparency
- appointment
- guest lecturer
- ITI
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.389 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5 of 2018
======================================================
Amit Ranjan S/o Yogendra Paswan, Resident of Basudeva Murli Basantpur,
P.S. and P.O. - Saharsa, District - Saharsa.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Directorate of Employment and Training
Labour Resources Department, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Collector, Saharsa.
3. Principal Industrial Training Institute, Saharsa.
4. Navin Kumar, Guest Lecturer, ITI Saharsa.
5. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Sri Ravindra Prasad Sah, Resident of Village - Batraha,
P.O. and P.S.- Saharsa, District - Saharsa.
6. Kumari Sangita, D/o Bhupendra Prasad Yadav, At- Dumrail Lakshminia
Chowk, Ward No. - 34, P.O. and P.S - Saharsa, District - Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kr. Singh, AAG-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
6 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra Court appeal has been preferred
against the order dated 04.07.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5 of
2018, whereby the writ petition was partly allowed, and the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.389 of 2022(6) dt.24-03-2026
2/6
learned Single Judge had set aside the selection process that was
conducted. Further, directions were issued for conducting fresh
selection process.
3. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement
was issued for appointment to the post of Guest Lecturer at ITI,
Saharsa. The appellant and the private respondents had
participated in the same. The appellant was initially selected for
the said post, however, the selection was challenged in the
impugned writ petition which came to be partly allowed.
4. The learned Single Judge, while disposing C.W.J.C.
No. 5 of 2018, had set aside the selection process on the ground
that there were several interpolations in the merit list that was
prepared. The relevant part of the order of the learned Single
Judge is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“7. Considering that there are several
interpolations in the entire merit list prepared, and
that in absentees were included the selection cannot
be said to be justified, fair and transparent. The
entire selection therefore cannot be allowed to
sustain.
8. Accordingly, the selection conducted
for under the advertisement for the Lecturer/I.T.I.
are quashed and set aside.
9. The respondents are now directed to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.389 of 2022(6) dt.24-03-2026
3/6
conduct a fresh selection by following a fair and
transparent manner by inviting applications and
conducting demo classes and only those who have
participated therein, ought to be allowed to be
included to be an integral of the selection. If in the
said merit list the petitioners find their place, they
shall be considered and appointed.
10. The writ petition is partly allowed.”
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Single Judge had wrongly considered some markings
which were made by students as interpolations and any
overwriting made by students in the demo-classes should not be
considered as interpolation. Learned counsel further submits
that in the present case, the appellants are degree-holders and
the private respondents are diploma-holders. As such, the
appellant would be given preference in selection for the said
post. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in any case, the
writ-petitioners would not have succeeded in the selection
process.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the order
of the learned Single Judge requires no interference by this
Court and the present appeal is fit to be dismissed.
7. The Writ Court had come to the finding that there
were several interpolations in the entire merit list prepared and,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.389 of 2022(6) dt.24-03-2026
4/6
for the said reason, the learned Court interfered with the
advertisement in question. Upon perusal of materials on record,
it is evident that the chart prepared by the respondent for
selection of the said post has overwriting/marks which was
rightly considered by the learned Single Judge as interpolation.
8. Further, by virtue of the impugned selection of the
appellant, no indefeasible right of petitioner has accrued to hold
the said post. Therefore, in view of the observations made by the
learned Single Judge in paragraph 8 and 9 of the impugned
order, the petitioner could not have any valid grievance against
the fresh selection process, as directed by the learned Single
Judge.
9. Thus, the appellant has been unable to substantiate
the grounds of the present appeal to dislodge the findings of the
learned Single Judge. The scope of a Letters Patent Appeal is
very limited and normally in absence of cogent reasons,
Division bench would not differ from a finding of fact recorded
by learned Single Judge. The relevant paragraph of the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umabai v. Nilkanth
Dhondiba Chavan, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 243, is
reproduced as under:
“52. It may be, as has been held in Asha Devi
[(1974) 2 SCC 492] that the power of the appellate court in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.389 of 2022(6) dt.24-03-2026
5/6
intra-court appeal is not exactly the same as contained in
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure but it is also well
known that entertainment of a letters patent appeal is
discretionary and normally the Division Bench would not,
unless there exist cogent reasons, differ from a finding of
fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Even as noticed
hereinbefore, a court of first appeal which is the final court
of appeal on fact may have to exercise some amount of
restraint.”
10. It is also relevant to take note of the Judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra & Co. (P) Ltd. v.
Workmen, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340, wherein the Court
held that merely on the ground that another view is possible, the
order of the Single Judge should not be interfered with. The
relevant paragraph of the said Judgment is reproduced as under:
“5. …..Be that as it may, in an intra-court
appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench
reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is
perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because
another view or a better view is possible, there should be no
interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the
Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach
on relief.”
11. In view of the facts and materials on record, the
discussions made above and the decisions of the Hon’ble
Patna High Court L.P.A No.389 of 2022(6) dt.24-03-2026
6/6
Supreme Court as referred above, we find no illegality or
perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
12. Accordingly, the present intra Court appeal stands
dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Sachin/-
U
Checking your session…