Patna High Court
Hari Shankar MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the Single Judge was correct to dismiss the writ petition as the operative decision was not specifically challenged, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
Summary
Hari Shankar Mishra, a retired revenue clerk, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar to grant him the third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefit, counting his service from his initial appointment in 1977. The District Screening Committee had already denied the third MACP in decisions dated 16 March 2017 and 25 January 2024, which Mishra did not expressly challenge in the writ proceedings. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the operative decision of 25 January 2024 was not under challenge, thereby refusing to examine Mishra's substantive claim. On appeal, Mishra contended that the dismissal was erroneous because the court should have adjudicated his entitlement. The High Court held that relief cannot be granted against an order that has not been specifically assailed, citing the principle from Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition for not adjudicating the appellant's claim because the District Screening Committee's decision dated 25.01.2024 was not specifically challenged.
- Whether the intra‑court Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable when the underlying order was not contested in the original writ proceedings.
Subjects
- Letters Patent Appeal
- writ of mandamus
- ACP
- MACP
- service benefits
- maintainability
- intra‑court appeal
- challenge of order
- procedural law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.859 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6371 of 2016
======================================================
Hari Shankar Mishra S/o Late Shatrughan Prasad Mishra @ Shatrughan
Mishra resident of Village- Bahadurpur Patori, P.S.- Shahpur Patori, District-
Samastipur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Dept. Govt. of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Dept. Govt. of Bihar.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Dept. Govt. of Bihar.
4. The Collector, Samastipur District.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Madan Prasad Singh No.2
For the Respondents : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 08-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the
learned Single in CWJC No.6371 of 2016, whereby the writ
petition preferred by the writ petitioner came to be dismissed.
3. The writ petition was filed, inter alia seeking the
following relief(s):-
"1. That this application is for a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to grant the 3rd MACP
Patna High Court L.P.A No.859 of 2024 dt.08-07-2026
2/7
(Modified Assured Career Progression) w.e.f.
28.02.07 when the petitioner husband completed 30
years of service from 28.02.1977 with consequential
monetary benefits or issue such appropriate
writ/writs, direction/directions or pass such other
order/orders which may be found just and proper."
4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was
initially appointed as an Amin in the Department of Consolidation
and joined service on 28.02.1977. Subsequently, he was
transferred and absorbed in the Revenue Department as a Revenue
Clerk on 07.10.1994 and retired from service on 31.07.2010.
5. The District Screening Committee, Samastipur, by
Memo No.1283 dated 20.12.2012, granted the appellant the benefit
of the first and second ACP with effect from 26.10.2008.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed CWJC No.6371
of 2016. During the pendency of the writ petition, the District
Screening Committee issued Memo No. 244 dated 16.03.2017 in
relation to grant of ACP/MACP benefits.
7. Further, the District Screening Committee
reconsidered the appellant’s case in its meeting held on 25.01.2024
and communicated its decision vide Memo No.109 dated
27.01.2024.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.859 of 2024 dt.08-07-2026
3/7
8. The learned Single Judge, by judgment and order
dated 23.04.2024 passed in CWJC No. 6371 of 2016, dismissed
the writ petition, the operative portion of the said order reads as
follows:
"3. Learned counsel for the State submits that in
compliance of the order dated 04.01.2024, a meeting of
District Screening Committee under the Chairmanship of
the respondent no. 4, i.e., the Collector, Samastipur, was
held on 25.01.2024 with regard to the third ACP of the
petitioner and the propose regarding ACP and MACP
along with Service Book of the petitioner was placed
before the District Screening Committee and the
Committee examined and considered the proposal and
Service book of the petitioner and after perusal of the
entire matter District Screening Committee has found
that the benefit of first ACP and second ACP has already
been provided to the petitioner with effect from
26.10.2008 and in light of the clause 04 of the letter no.
10936 dated 27.11.2014 of the Finance Department,
Bihar, the District Screening Committee found that the
petitioner is not entitled to get the third MACP. Apart
from that, the District Screening Committee has already
rejected the claim of the petitioner with regard to the
third MACP in its meeting in its meeting dated
12.02.2017 itself and the petitioner has not challenged
the proceeding of the District Screening Committee dated
25.01.2024 and after due consideration the Committee
has found that the petitioner is not entitled for the third
MACP.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.859 of 2024 dt.08-07-2026
4/7
4. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands
dismissed."
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition without
adjudicating the appellant’s substantive claim for grant of
ACP/MACP benefits by counting his service from the date of his
initial appointment as Amin, i.e., 28.02.1977.
10. It is further submitted that the appellant also filed a
rejoinder bringing on record the decisions dated 16.03.2017 and
25.01.2024. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge
was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that
the said decisions had not been challenged.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents raises a preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the present Letters Patent Appeal. It is submitted
that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the
ground that the decisions of the District Screening Committee
dated 16.03.2017 and 25.01.2024, which governed the appellant’s
claim, were not under challenge in the writ proceedings. Since no
adjudication on the merits of the appellant’s entitlement to
ACP/MACP benefits was undertaken, the present appeal, in
substance, seeks to challenge the subsequent decisions of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.859 of 2024 dt.08-07-2026
5/7
District Screening Committee, which cannot be examined in an
intra-court appeal arising out of the judgment dated 23.04.2024.
12. The limited issue which arises for consideration
before this Court is as to Whether the learned Single Judge
committed any error in dismissing the writ petition on the ground
that the decision of the District Screening Committee dated
25.01.2024 was not under challenge, thereby declining to examine
the appellant's claim for grant of ACP/MACP benefits.
13. Admittedly, during the pendency of the writ
proceedings, the District Screening Committee passed its decision
dated 25.01.2024, communicated vide Memo No.109 dated
27.01.2024, whereby the appellant’s claim stood rejected. The said
decision constituted the operative order governing the rights of the
appellant. However, the appellant neither amended the writ
petition nor sought any substantive relief for quashing the said
decision. The contention that the interlocutory application or the
rejoinder should be treated as a challenge to the said order is not
borne out from the record.
14. It is well settled that relief cannot be granted against
an order which is not specifically assailed before the Court. In
Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, reported in (1953) 1
SCC 456, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a Court cannot
Patna High Court L.P.A No.859 of 2024 dt.08-07-2026
6/7
travel beyond the pleadings or grant a relief in the absence of an
appropriate challenge. The relevant part of the said order reads as
follows:
“ 38. We are unable to uphold the view taken by
the High Court on this point. It is well settled
that the decision of a case cannot be based on
grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and
it is the case pleaded that has to be found.
Without an amendment of the plaint the court
was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for
and no prayer was ever made to amend the
plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative
case. The allegations on which the plaintiff
claimed relief in respect of these shares are clear
and emphatic. There was no suggestion made in
the plaint or even when its amendment was
sought at one stage that the plaintiff in the
alternative was entitled to this amount on the
ground of failure of consideration. That being so,
we see no valid grounds for entertaining the
plaintiff's claim as based on failure of
consideration on the case pleaded by him. In
disagreement with the courts below we hold that
the plaintiff was wrongly granted a decree for
the sum of Rs 6762-8-0 in respect of the
Associated Cement shares in this suit. Accounts
settled could only be reopened on proper
allegations.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.859 of 2024 dt.08-07-2026
7/7
15. This Court also independently finds that in the
absence of any challenge to the operative decision dated
25.01.2024, no effective relief could have been granted by the
learned Single Judge. Consequently, we find no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment and order.
16. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Ranjan Kumar Jha, J.)
Gaurav Kumar,
Atul/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 10.07.2026
Transmission Date N.A.
Checking your session…