Patna High Court
Niranjan Kumar NiralaversusThe State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary,
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The appellate court set aside the dismissal of the writ petition and remanded the matter for consideration of any interlocutory application to implead the necessary party, without deciding the merits.
Summary
The petitioner, Niranjan Kumar Nirala, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Bihar State University Service Commission to consider his appointment as Assistant Professor of Mathematics and to count his teaching experience from an affiliated college. The petition was filed after the selection result had been published and without challenging the result, and it failed to implead the candidate who was ultimately selected, a party the Commission argued was necessary. The Single Judge dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000, holding that the petition was filed in a casual manner and that a participant in the selection process cannot challenge the result thereafter. On appeal, the High Court acknowledged the procedural deficiency but noted that the petitioner intended to file an interlocutory application to implead the necessary party and that no merits had been decided. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal, remanded the matter to the Single Judge for consideration of any interlocutory application, and allowed the Letters Patent Appeal without expressing any view on the substantive merits.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition filed after the publication of selection results, without assailing the result, is maintainable.
- Whether the non-joinder of a necessary party (the selected candidate) defeats the petition.
- Whether costs can be imposed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
- Whether the appellate court can set aside a dismissal on procedural grounds and remand for interlocutory relief.
Subjects
- appointment
- assistant professor
- teaching experience
- mandamus
- writ jurisdiction
- non-joinder
- cost
- remand
- selection process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.573 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19251 of 2024
======================================================
Niranjan Kumar Nirala Son of Late Janardan Mandal, Resident of Village -
Bhawanipur, P.S. - Singheshwar, District- Madhepura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. Bihar State University Service Commission, 8th floor Bihar School
Examination Board Academic Building, Buddha Marg Patna - 01, through
its Secretary.
4. Chairman, Bihar State University, Service Commission, 8th floor Bihar
School Examination Board Academic Building, Buddha Marg, Patna.
5. Secretary, Bihar State University Service Commission, 8th floor Bihar
School Examination Board Academic Building, Buddha Marg, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Saumya Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Gunjan Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4
Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamual, AC to AAG-4
For the B.S.U.S.C. : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
6 22-04-2026 This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging
the order dated 08.04.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge
in C.W.J.C. No. 19251 of 2024, in dismissing the writ petition
as well as imposing cost of rupees twenty-five thousand on the
petitioner which was directed to be deposited with the legal aid
Patna High Court L.P.A No.573 of 2025(6) dt.22-04-2026
2/6
cell of the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking for
following reliefs:-
“i. For issuance of an order, direction
or writ including writ in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the
Respondents to consider the case of
the Petitioner for appointment as
Assistant Professor in 'Mathematics'
in pursuance of advertisement No
23/20-21 dated21/9/2020 issued by
the Bihar State University Service
Commission.
ii. For issuance of an order, direction
or writ including writ in Mandamus
commanding the Respondents to count
the period of teaching experience in
the affiliated college (ALY College
Triveniganj, Supaul) affiliated to
B.N.Mandal University, Madhepura.
iii. For issuance of an order, direction
or writ including writ in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the
Respondents to recommend the name
of the Petitioner as Assistant
Professor after for appointment
considering the entire teaching
experience period of the Petitioner.
iv. For issuance of an appropriate
declaration holding that Petitioner is
entitled for teaching experience marks
for his teaching in the affiliated
college as the teaching experience
certificate has been duly signed by the
Principal of the college and
countersigned by the Registrar of the
University.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.573 of 2025(6) dt.22-04-2026
3/6
v. For any other relief(s) to which the
Petitioner may be found entitled in the
facts and circumstances of the present
case.”
3. When the writ petition was taken up for the first
time for admission on 08.04.2025, a preliminary objection was
raised by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar
State University Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as
“the Commission”) that result had already been published on
26.07.2024 and the writ petition was filed on 27.11.2024, but
the petitioner has not chosen to assail the result by which his
candidature was not recommended, rather he had sought for a
direction to the authorities to consider his case for appointment.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Commission that when
the result was not under challenge, the direction to the
authorities as prayed for by the petitioner for appointment could
not have been considered. It is further argued on behalf of the
Commission before the learned Single Judge that the writ
petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary party and if the
writ petition is allowed, then the last person who was selected,
will be adversely affected and, as such, the said candidate was a
necessary party and in his absence, the writ application could
not be adjudicated. It was further argued on behalf of the
Commission that since the petitioner had participated in the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.573 of 2025(6) dt.22-04-2026
4/6
selection process, he could not have challenged the selection
process after being declared unsuccessful.
4. After hearing the submission made by the parties,
the learned Single Judge accepted the contention raised on
behalf of the Commission and came to hold that the writ petition
has been filed in a casual manner without assailing the result
and without impleading the necessary party as respondent. The
learned Judge further came to hold that the submission of the
learned counsel for the Commission that, having participated in
the selection process, the petitioner could not have challenged
the selection process after being unsuccessful was correct.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
argued that the imposition of the cost for non-joinder of
necessary parties to the tune of rupees twenty five thousand was
not justified and, even if the petitioner had not impleaded the
necessary party as the respondent or assailed the result, he could
have filed the interlocutory application for the same and
therefore, it was not justified on the part of the learned Single
Judge to dismiss the writ petition on the first day itself, holding
that it was filed in a callous manner as well as imposing cost of
rupees twenty-five thousand. It is further argued by the learned
Senior Counsel that if the matter is remanded back to the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.573 of 2025(6) dt.22-04-2026
5/6
learned Single Judge, he will file an interlocutory application to
implead the necessary party. It is further submitted that there are
sufficient grounds for his success in the writ petition and if the
matter is taken up on merit by the learned Single Judge, he can
convince the learned Single Judge that the writ petition deserves
to be allowed.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the State and the
learned Counsel for the Commission supported the impugned
order and submitted that in view of the settled position of law
that after participating in the selection process, the petitioner
could not have challenged the selection process and that on
account of non-joinder of necessary parties, the relief could not
have been granted, the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge suffers from no perversity and therefore, in
exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, this Court should not
interfere with the same.
7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the respective
parties, even though we are satisfied that there was a
requirement on the part of the appellant for impleading the
necessary parties for the proper adjudication of the case, but
since the learned Senior Counsel is intending to file an
interlocutory application to add necessary party and the fact
Patna High Court L.P.A No.573 of 2025(6) dt.22-04-2026
6/6
that no adjudication has been done on the merits of the writ
petition, we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order.
8. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge
as per roster and in case any interlocutory application is filed by
the writ petitioner/appellant seeking leave to challenge the result
and impleading the necessary party, the same shall be
considered in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have
not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
9. The Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U
Checking your session…