Patna High Court

Shail DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 July 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ACTING RANJAN KUMAR JHA

Holding

The Court held that the Single Judge did not err; the writ petition was correctly dismissed as the operative committee decisions were not challenged.

Summary

The appellant, Shail Devi, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar to grant the third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefit to her late husband, whose service began on 28‑02‑1977. The District Screening Committee had already granted the first and second ACP benefits and, through decisions dated 16‑03‑2017 and 22‑02‑2024, rejected the claim for the third MACP. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that these committee decisions were not specifically challenged in the writ proceedings. The appellant contended that the judge erred by not considering the substantive entitlement based on the original appointment date. The High Court held that relief cannot be granted against an order that has not been expressly assailed, citing the principle from Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, and therefore found no error in the dismissal. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition without adjudicating the appellant's claim for the third MACP because the District Screening Committee's decisions were not specifically challenged.

Subjects

ACP
MACP
mandamus
Letters Patent Appeal
maintainability
service benefits
District Screening Committee
procedural law

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.861 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6597 of 2016
======================================================
Shail Devi W/o- Late Surendra Prasad Mishra resident of Village- Bahadurpur
Patori, P.S.- Shahpur Patori, District- Samastipur.
... ... Appellant/s
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.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Madan Prasad Singh No.2, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

5 08-07-2026 It is noticed that in the order dated 18.03.2026 and

30.04.2026, passed in L.P.A. No. 861 of 2024, the writ case

number from which the present appeal arises has inadvertently

been mentioned as C.W.J.C. No. 11041 of 2024.

2. The aforesaid is a clerical/typographical error. The

same shall be read as C.W.J.C. No. 6597 of 2016 instead of

C.W.J.C. No. 11041 of 2024.

3. The order dated 18.03.2026 and 30.04.2026 stands

corrected to the aforesaid extent.

4. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
Patna High Court L.P.A No.861 of 2024(5) dt.08-07-2026
2/8

against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the

learned Single in C.W.J.C. No. 6597 of 2016, whereby the writ

petition preferred by the writ petitioner came to be dismissed.

5. 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 (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.”

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed C.W.J.C. No.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.861 of 2024(5) dt.08-07-2026
3/8

6597 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.

9. Further, the District Screening Committee

reconsidered the appellant’s case in its meeting held on

22.02.2024 and communicated its decision vide Memo No.

3050 dated 27.02.2024.

10. The learned Single Judge, by judgment and order

dated 23.04.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6597 of 2016,

dismissed the writ petition, the operative portion of the said

order reads as follows:-

"3. 3. Learned counsel for the State
submits that in compliance of the order
dated 04.01.2024, passed in the present
writ petition a meeting of District
Screening Committee under the
Chairmanship of the respondent no. 4,
i.e., the Collector, Samastipur, was held
on 22.02.2024 with regard to the third
MACP of the husband of the petitioner
and the propose regarding ACP and
MACP along with Service Book of the
husband of the petitioner was placed
before the District Screening Committee
and the Committee examined and
considered the proposal and Service book
of the husband of the petitioner and after
Patna High Court L.P.A No.861 of 2024(5) dt.08-07-2026
4/8

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 husband of
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
husband of the petitioner was not entitled
to get the third MACP. Apart from that,
the District Screening Committee has
already rejected the claim of the husband
of the petitioner with
regard to the third MACP in its meeting
dated 16.03.2017 itself and the petitioner
has not challenged the proceeding of the
District Screening Committee dated
16.03.2017 & 22.02.2024 and after due
consideration the Committee has found
that the husband of the petitioner was not
entitled for the third MACP.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is devoid of merit and stands
dismissed"
11. 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.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.861 of 2024(5) dt.08-07-2026
5/8

12. It is further submitted that the appellant also filed

a rejoinder bringing on record the decisions dated 16.03.2017

and 22.02.2024. 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.

13. 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 22.02.2024, 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 District Screening

Committee, which cannot be examined in an intra-court appeal

arising out of the judgment dated 23.04.2024.

14. 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.861 of 2024(5) dt.08-07-2026
6/8

dated 22.02.2024 was not under challenge, thereby declining

to examine the appellant's claim for grant of ACP/MACP

benefits.

15. Admittedly, during the pendency of the writ

proceedings, the District Screening Committee passed its

decision dated 22.02.2024, communicated vide Memo No. 350

dated 27.02.2024, 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.

16. 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 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.861 of 2024(5) dt.08-07-2026
7/8

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.”

17. This Court also independently finds that in the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.861 of 2024(5) dt.08-07-2026
8/8

absence of any challenge to the operative decision dated

22.02.2024, 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.

18. Accordingly, the present appeal stands

dismissed.

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J)

(Ranjan Kumar Jha, J)
Sachin/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…