Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellant is not entitled to the appointment and the appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.
Summary
Ranjeet Kumar, who worked as a contractual Amin for the District Bhoodan Yagya Committee between 2004 and 2007, filed a writ petition seeking regular appointment to the same post, relying on a 2009 recommendation letter. Earlier, the petitioner had approached the court in 2015, was granted liberty to pursue alternative remedies, withdrew the petition, and subsequently filed applications before the District Magistrate, which were rejected. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in granting a regular appointment based solely on past contractual service. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the petitioner was entitled to the appointment and whether the writ petition was maintainable after the earlier liberty. The Court concluded that past contractual service does not create a right to regular appointment and that there was no illegality or perversity in the lower court’s order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular appointment as Amin in the District Bhoodan Yagya Committee based on his prior contractual service.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable after the petitioner was previously granted liberty to seek alternative remedies.
Subjects
- appointment
- public service
- writ jurisdiction
- letters patent appeal
- contractual employment
- alternative remedy
- maintainability
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.605 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6183 of 2025
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar son of Sukhdeo Das, Resident of Village-
Lattipur, P.S.-Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.
3. The Additional Collector, Bhagalpur.
4. The Bihar Bhoodan Aogya Committee Gardanibagh Road No. 34, Patna
through its Chairman.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 12-01-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging
the order dated 24.04.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6183 of
2025. The writ petition was filed by the appellant with the
following prayers:
(i) For issue an appropriate writ in the
nature of writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction/
directions commanding the respondents to make
appointment of the petitioner on the post of A min
in the office of District Bhoodan Yagya Committee
Patna High Court L.P.A No.605 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
2/4
Bhagalpur as petitioner has already worked as a
Amin in the said office from 06.01.2024 to
07.07.2007.
(ii) To direct the respondent appoint the
petitioner on the post of Amin by virtul of letter no.
2342 dated 22/10/2009 issued by the Respondent
no.3 (Annexure-5) series by which the name of the
petitioner was recommended for appointment but
the same was not complied with.
(iii) To grant any other relief or reliefs
for which the petitioner is found entailed.
2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing learned
counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent, came to hold
as follows:-
"4. Notwithstanding the liberty accorded
to the petitioner by this Court to avail the
alternative remedy when the petitioner approached
before the concerned authorities of the Bhoodan
Yagya Committee, his claim was not considered in
the right perspective and it stood rejected, hence,
the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.
5. Learned Advocate for the Bhoodan
Yagya Committee has taken this Court through the
order passed in the earlier round of litigation and
submitted that the Court on being found no merit in
the writ petition, has given liberty to the petitioner
to avail alternative remedies and, in fact, the writ
Patna High Court L.P.A No.605 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
3/4
petition stands dismissed as not pressed; hence, in
any circumstances the present writ petition is not
maintainable. Moroever, the petitioner has worked
only for few years, that too in the year 2004 to
2007 and now the present writ petition came to be
filed after such a belated stage.
6. Considering the submissions advanced
on behalf of learned Advocate for the parties, this
Court does not find any merit in the present writ
petition, accordingly the writ petition stands
dismissed.
7. It is suffice to observe that the
petitioner had already been accorded liberty in the
earlier round of litigation, hence no further order
is required."
3. From the averments made in the writ petition, it
appears that the petitioner worked for a few years between 2004
and 2007. Thereafter, he approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.
12139 of 2015, which was disposed of on 25.08.2023. The
learned counsel for the appellant withdrew the said writ petition
to avail of the alternative remedy. It is submitted that, for
availing such remedy, petitions were filed before the District
Magistrate, Bhagalpur on 07.09.2023 and also on 28.11.2023. It
further appears that the learned District Magistrate rejected the
petitions filed by the appellant.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.605 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
4/4
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that, since the petitioner had served for three years
as an Amin, he should be granted relief and appointed to the
post of Amin in the office of the District Bhoodan Yagya
Committee, Bhagalpur. We are not inclined to accept such a
prayer. The appellant has not made out a case to get the relief as
sought for.
5. Moreover, we find no perversity or illegality in the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Merely
because the appellant worked for a few years on a contractual
basis, that by itself cannot be a ground to give him appointment
on a regular basis.
6. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal, being
devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Neha/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 15.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…