Patna High Court
Amit Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 21 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17749 of 2023
======================================================
Amit Kumar Son of Late Sriprakash Tripathi, Resident of New Model Public
School, Bankipur Gorakh, Fatuha, P.S. - Fatuha, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Learned Secretary, Law Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Hon'ble Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna through the Learned
Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna.
3. The Learned District and Sessions Judge, Patna-cum-Convener,
Coordination Committee, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sita Ram Yadav ( Gp-16 )
Mr. Jitendra Kumar A.C. to G.P.16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 26-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
"i. For issuance of an order, direction or a
writ of certiorari for directing the respondent
authorities to consider the writ petitioner for
appointment to the post of Clerk in the Sub-
ordinate Courts within the State of Bihar
against Employment Notice No. 01/2016
dated 07.02.2016 on vacancies arising due
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
2/24
to non-joining in terms of the provisions
contained in the Advertisement as well as
Rule 7(13) and (14) of the Bihar Civil Court
Staff (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 2009
(hereinafter referred to as '2009 Rules')
since the writ petitioner was at Serial No.22
in the waiting list of candidates prepared
pursuant to the aforesaid employment notice
which prescribed for filling up the non-
joining vacancies by way of the panel
prepared for selection.
ii. For issuance of an order, direction or a
writ of mandamus for directing the
respondent authorities to extend all
consequential benefits in favour of the
petitioner after appointing them and
allowing them to submit their joining against
the post of Clerk in the subordinate courts
within the State of Bihar against
Employment Notice No.01/2016 dated
07.02.2016
.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that an
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
3/24
employment notice bearing no.01 of 2016 dated 07.02.2016 was
published by the competent authority in the office of the
Convener/Coordination Committee, Patna-cum-District &
Sessions Judge, Patna, inviting applications from eligible
candidates for preparation of panel of suitable candidates for
appointment against 1681 tentative vacancies to the post of
Clerk. The petitioner being eligible applied against the aforesaid
employment notice and was issued admit card for appearing in
the screening test which was to be conducted on 17.07.2016.
The result of the screening test was published on 29.04.2017,
wherein the petitioner was declared successful to participate in
the written (Main) examination. The petitioner was issued admit
card for appearing in the written/Main examination, which was
to be conducted on 15.10.2017 in which he participated and the
result of the same was declared on 16.12.2017. Altogether 4914
candidates were declared successful, including the petitioner and
were allowed to participate in the interview.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that
accordingly, he participated in the interview and on 26.09.2018,
the final select list of 1681 candidates was published, for
appointment on the post of Clerk in different Subordinate
Courts, within the State of Bihar, but surprisingly the name of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
4/24
the petitioner did not figure in the list of 1681 candidates. It has
been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that
the advertisement clearly prescribes that after selection test (both
written test and viva voce) are over, on the basis of marks of
both written and viva voce, a common panel shall be prepared
by the Coordination Committee in order of merit for all the
Judgeship in the State of Bihar and the panel shall remain valid
for a period of two years from the date of preparation thereof. It
was also prescribed that the existing vacancies, as also any
future vacancy due to retirement, resignation and non-joining,
occurring within the period of two years, shall be filled up from
amongst the candidates in the said panel in order of merit.
5. It has further been contended on behalf of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 7 (12), (13) & (14) of
the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III & IV) Rules, 2009
prescribes as follows:-
“(12) A panel of successful candidates shall
be prepared on the basis of total marks
obtained in written examination as also in
the interview. After the selection test (both
written and oral) are over, a common panel
shall be prepared by the Co-ordination
Committee in order of merit for all the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
5/24Judgeship in the State of Bihar.
(13) The aforesaid panel shall remain valid
for a period of two years.
(14) The existing vacancies as also the
anticipated vacancies occurring within the
aforementioned period may be filled up from
amongst the candidates in the said panel in
order of merit.”
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that from the aforesaid prescription in the Rule as
well as in the advertisement, that at least the vacancies arising
due to non-joining were required to be filled up from amongst
the candidates mentioned in the panel, but the respondent
authorities did not prepare any such panel. The recruiting agency
had prepared a waiting list of 168 candidates as per reservation
roster on the basis of their merit, but the same was not published
as only the select list was approved by the High Court. The
waiting list prepared by the recruiting agency was provided in
response to an application made by similarly situated candidate
under the Right to Information Act vide letter dated 17.02.2023.
It has been contended that from perusal of the aforesaid merit
list of 168 candidates, the name of the petitioner finds place at
serial no.22 and he has secured 74.33 marks in the unreserved
category. The cut-of marks in the unreserved category was
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
6/24
74.66.
7. It has further been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that a similarly situated candidate
sought information under the Right to Information Act, wherein
vide letter dated 25.03.2019 it has been intimated that 273
candidates out of 1681 did not join on the post of Clerk in
relation to the employment notice no.01 of 2016. The petitioner
came to know that out of 273 non-joining vacancies, 122 are in
the unreserved category and therefore, the petitioner who was at
serial no.22 in the waiting list, ought to have been appointed,
had the panel been approved by the High Court. Similarly
situated candidates filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.
21218 of 2018, which was heard along with some other cases,
but the same were dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2022 passed
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court. Being aggrieved with the
order dated 29.09.2022, Appeal bearing LPA no.650 of 2022 was
filed and the same was heard along with several analogous
cases. The appeals were allowed vide order dated 19.04.2023
with certain directions. It has further been submitted that about
20 persons have been appointed in October 2023, pursuant to the
aforesaid Judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Division
Bench on 19.04.2023 and the same has attained finality.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
7/24
However, the respondent authorities have not extended the same
relief to other similarly situated candidates and the case of the
petitioner is also covered by the aforementioned decision and in
fact, the case of the petitioner is on a better footing than many
other, since he has secured 22nd rank amongst all the 168
candidates in the waiting list. Since the judgment dated
19.04.2023 is a judgment in rem, therefore, the same has to be
made applicable to all candidates who were placed in the
waiting list and would be in the zone of selection on the
vacancies arising due to non-joining, which is 273, as per the
reservation roster. Finally, it has been submitted that the
petitioner deserves to be appointed against the 122 vacancies
arising due to non-joining of the selected candidates in the
unreserved category.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a
judgment of a division Bench of this court dated 19.04.2023
passed in L.P.A. No. 650 of 2022 and its analogues cases
whereby the Hon’ble Division Bench in paragraphs No.18, and
19 has held as under:-
“18. In the light of these facts and
circumstances decisions of the committee
dated 31.01.2019 and further communication
by the Registrar (Administration) to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
8/24District and Session Judge, Patna dated
19.02.2019 are contrary to statutory rules
cited (supra).
19. The learned Single Judge has not
appreciated that statutory rule will prevail
over the executive instruction/decision.
Further it is to be noted that the opinion
expressed by the committee is to be upheld in
such an event the proper course for the
concerned competent authority is to take
appropriate steps to amend Sub-rule 12, 13
and 14 of the Rule 7 of Rules, 2009. In the
absence of amendment to Rules, 2009 that
too with retrospective effect, i.e., prior to
07.02.2016 the date on which Clerk post was
notified. Executive decision cannot override
statutory rules. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge has committed error in dismissing the
writ petitions filed by the appellants.”
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that based on the above-mentioned judgment of the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, about twenty persons
have been appointed in October 2023 and the judgment dated
19.04.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench has attained
finality, therefore, the same relief should have been granted to
all the similarly situated candidates by the respondent authorities
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
9/24
and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision
of the Hon’ble Division Bench. It has further been submitted
that the case of the petitioner is even better than the persons
appointed, pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench,
since the petitioner has secured 22nd rank amongst all the 168
candidates in the waiting list.
10. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent-High Court submits that the writ petition itself is not
maintainable since as per Rule, 7 (12), (13) and (14) of the 2009
Rules common panel on the basis of the marks of written test
and interview was to be prepared and out of which appointment
was to be made and the panel was valid for two years only. The
same was also stipulated in the advertisement dated 07.02.2016,
therefore, the statutory provision and the terms and conditions of
the advertisement binds the petitioner and the petitioner has not
disputed the same. Further as per the averments made in the
writ petition it is the stand of the petitioner that no panel was
prepared, but the same is not correct, since a common panel and
merit list was published on 26.09.2018 and the same has been
recorded in paragraphs No. 10, 14 and 15 of order dated
29.09.2022 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 21219 of 2018,
C.W.J.C. No. 6259 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No. 24716 of 2018.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
10/24
11. It has further been submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 that in terms of Rule
7(13) of the 2009 Rules, the panel/select list dated 26.09.2018
was to be valid for a period of two years i.e. till 26.09.2020 and
the present writ petition has been filed on 23.09.2023. It it
settled law that a writ petition filed after expiry of the validity of
the merit list is not maintainable and therefore, the present writ
petition filed after three years of the expiry of validity of the said
panel/merit list is not maintainable on the ground of delay and
laches. It has further been submitted that it is also a settled law
that once a court hold a writ petition to be not maintainable it
does not proceed further to decide on merit and thus no
submissions are liable to be decided in the present writ petition.
12. The learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2
and 3 relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India reported in 1996 (9) SCC 309 State of U.P. and Others
Vs. Harish Chandra and Others wherein paragraphs No. 2,3,4
and 10, it has been held as follows:-
“2.The impugned direction of the learned
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court
in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
25696 of 1990 is being challenged in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
11/24first case and a similar direction of a
learned Single Judge of Allahabad High
Court dated 2-4-1993 passed in Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 28719 of
1992 following the earlier judgment is
being assailed in the second case. The
question of law involved in both these
appeals is one and the same, namely, is the
High Court justified in issuing a mandamus
to the appellant to make recruitment of the
respondents who were in the select list of
the year 1987 even after the expiry of the
said list, the list under the Recruitment
Rules having the force only for a period of
one year from the date of selection.
3.The recruitment/selection to the posts in
Class III and Class IV is made under a
Statutory Rule called the Subordinate
Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment)
Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
“Recruitment Rules”). Under the Rules the
appointing authority is required to
determine the number of vacancies to be
filled during the course of the year and
notify the same to the Employment
Exchange for sponsoring candidates. The
appointing authority is also entitled to
invite applications directly by issuing an
advertisement in a local daily newspaper.
On receipt of the names of the candidates
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
12/24the Selection Committee prepares a merit
list in the manner prescribed under Rule 23.
The Selection Committee then forwards the
list thus prepared to the appointing
authority under Rule 26 mentioning the
aggregate marks obtained at the selection
by each candidate. The names of the
candidates are arranged by the appointing
authority in accordance with the merit of
the candidates and thereafter the
appointments are offered in the order in
which the names are arranged.
4.The respondents approached the High
Court alleging, inter alia, that though there
existed vacancies during the year 1987 and
the select list was prepared on 4-4-1987 but
the appointing authority arbitrarily did not
fill up the vacancies and the respondents
having failed in their attempt by filing
representations approached the court for
issuance of mandamus. It was also alleged
that the appointing authority ignoring the
select list prepared by the Statutory
Selection Committee has been filling up the
vacancies in accordance with its own sweet
will and the right of the candidates in the
select list is thereby being infringed. The
appellant filed counter-affidavit
controverting the allegations made in the
writ applications and took the positive stand
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
13/24that the select list of the year 1987 became
inoperative after lapse of one year from the
date of selection and, therefore, the
applicants who claimed to be in the select
list prepared on 4-4-1987 do not have any
right to be appointed as the life of the list
has expired by 4-4-1988. It was also
pleaded before the High Court that there
did not exist any vacancy during the year as
contended in the writ application. The High
Court by the impugned order instead of
focussing its attention on the relevant
provisions of the Statutory Rules, relying
upon certain earlier decisions of the court
came to hold that the select list does not
lapse on the expiry of one year from the
preparation of the list. The High Court also
came to the conclusion that several
vacancies having occurred after 4-4-1987
on account of superannuation of many of
the existing employees, the stand of the
State that there existed only one vacancy
cannot be accepted. With this conclusion
direction having been issued to appoint the
writ petitioners the same is being assailed
in these appeals.
10.Notwithstanding the aforesaid Statutory
Rule and without applying the mind to the
aforesaid Rule the High Court relying upon
some earlier decisions of the Court came to
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
14/24hold that the list does not expire after a
period of one year which on the face of it is
erroneous. Further question that arises in
this context is whether the High Court was
justified in issuing the mandamus to the
appellant to make recruitment of the writ
petitioners. Under the Constitution a
mandamus can be issued by the court when
the applicant establishes that he has a legal
right to the performance of legal duty by the
party against whom the mandamus is
sought and the said right was subsisting on
the date of the petition. The duty that may
be enjoined by mandamus may be one
imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or
by Rules or orders having the force of law.
But no mandamus can be issued to direct
the Government to refrain from enforcing
the provisions of law or to do something
which is contrary to law. This being the
position and in view of the Statutory Rules
contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment
Rules we really fail to understand how the
High Court could issue the impugned
direction to recruit the respondents who
were included in the select list prepared on
4-4-1987 and the list no longer survived
after one year and the rights, if any, of
persons included in the list did not subsist.
In the course of hearing the learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
15/24for the respondents, no doubt have pointed
out some materials which indicate that the
Administrative Authorities have made the
appointments from a list beyond the period
of one year from its preparation. The
learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that in some cases
pursuant to the direction of the Court some
appointments have been made but in some
other cases it might have been done by the
appointing authority. Even though we are
persuaded to accept the submission of the
learned counsel for the respondents that on
some occasions appointments have been
made by the appointing authority from a
select list even after the expiry of one year
from the date of selection but such an illegal
action of the appointing authority does not
confer a right on an applicant to be
enforced by a court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. We have no hesitation in
coming to the conclusion that such
appointments by the appointing authority
have been made contrary to the provisions
of the Statutory Rules for some unknown
reason and we deprecate the practice
adopted by the appointing authority in
making such appointments contrary to the
Statutory Rules. But at the same time it is
difficult for us to sustain the direction given
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
16/24by the High Court since, admittedly, the life
of the select list prepared on 4-4-1987 had
expired long since and the respondents who
claim their rights to be appointed on the
basis of such list did not have a subsisting
right on the date they approached the High
Court. We may not be understood to imply
that the High Court must issue such
direction, if the writ petition was filed
before the expiry of the period of one year
and the same was disposed of after the
expiry of the statutory period. In view of the
aforesaid conclusion of ours it is not
necessary to deal with the question whether
the stand of the State Government that there
existed one vacancy in the year 1987 is
correct or not.”
13. It has further been submitted by the respondents
No. 2 and 3 that taking into account the law that writ petition by
a fence sitter and also that writ petition filed with delay and
laches are not maintainable, different Benches of this Court have
been pleased to dismiss a number of writ petition filed by the
candidates, identical to the present petitioner, where all of them
had filed respective writ petition claiming appointment under
Advertisement dated 07.02.2016, after passing of the judgment
dated 19.04.2023 in L.P.A. No. 650 of 2022 and its analogous
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
17/24
appeals, on the ground that candidates with lessor marks have
been appointed in compliance of the said judgment, but they had
not been appointed despite being wait listed candidates.
14. In support thereof the learned counsel for the
respondents No. 2 and 3 relies on an order dated 22.02.2024
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1063 of 2024, order dated 22.03.2024
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4175 of 2024, order dated 16.07.2024
passed in C.W.J.C. 10450 of 2024, order dated 25.07.2024
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10898 of 2024, order dated 25.11.2024
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17575 of 2024, order dated 28.01.2026
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8068 of 2024 and order dated 23.09.2025
passed in L.P.A. No. 847/2024, wherein the writ
petitions/appeals preferred by the respective petitioners, who
were also similarly situated with the writ petitioner herein, have
been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The learned
counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 further submits that so
far the contention of the petitioner herein that his case is
identical to the case of the appellants of L.P.A. No. 650 of 2022
and its analogous appeals are concerned, the petitioner is not
entitled for the benefit, since in those cases the appellants had
filed their respective writ petitions in the year 2018 and 2019 i.e.
within the two years period of validity of the panel, whereas the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
18/24
writ petitioner has filed the writ petition after expiry of the said
period and that too after three years of its expiry, therefore, the
writ petition is not maintainable. Further, it is not the case of the
petitioner that he filed a representation within the period of two
years, as was down by the appellants of those cases and even he
has not brought on record any documents to so that he has ever
filed any representation, therefore, no mandamus can be sought
without making a demand by way of representation before the
concerned authority. Even the Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A.
No. 650 of 2022 and its analogous cases had taken note of these
two aspects before issuing directions in favour of the those
petitioners.
15. It is further contended on behalf of the
respondents No. 2 and 3 that so far the judgment relied on by the
petitioner to claim similar benefits i.e. the order dated
16.12.2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 261 of 2024 is concerned, the
said L.P.A. arises out of writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.
24716 of 2018 which was filed in 2018 itself and was heard and
dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide common
order dated 29.09.2022, along with some other writ petitions.
Though, petitioners of other C.W.J.C. filed L.P.A. No. 650 of
2022, L.P.A. No. 657 of 2022 and L.P.A. No. 661 of 2022 in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
19/24
year 2022 itself, but the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 24716 of
2018, filed L.P.A. No. 261 of 2024 and since against the common
order dated 29.09.2022, the Hon’ble Division Bench had already
allowed the L.P.A. No. 650 of 2022 and other cases arising out of
the said common order dated 29.09.2022, therefore, the delay in
filing the appeal was condoned and the L.P.A. No. 261 of 2024
was allowed. The case of the writ petitioner is not similar to the
cases of the appellants of L.P.A. No. 650 of 2022 and its two
analogues appeals or L.P.A. No. 261 of 2024.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 2
and 3 further submits that law regarding identically situated
persons should be given identical relief has already been settled
in paragraph No. 22.1 and 22.3 of the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar pradesh
Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors reported in 2015 (1)
SCC 347 which has been recently followed in the case of Lt.
Col. Suprita Chandel Vs. Union of India and others as noted in
order dated 16.12.2025 passed in L.P.A. No. 261 of 2024 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law as follows:-
Normal rule is that when an employee is
given relief by the Court, all other
identically situated persons should be
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
20/24treated alike by extending same benefit. But
this rule has an exception in the form of
laches, delay and acquiescence and for
fence sitters who wake up after long delay
after their counterparts who had
approached the Court earlier in time
succeeded in their efforts. Further, there is
also an exception to this exception which is
that delay and laches would not be
applicable where the judgment pronounced
by the Court is a judgment in-rem with
intention to give benefit to all similarly
situated persons (such as those decisions
which touch policy matters) whether they
have approached the Court or not and in
such cases obligation is cast upon the
authorities to itself extend the benefit
thereof to all similarly situated person. But
on the other hand, if the judgment of the
Court was in-personam holding that benefit
of the said judgment shall accrue to the
parties before the Court and such an
intention is stated expressly in the judgment
or it can be impliedly found out from the
tenor and language of the judgment, those
who want to get its benefit shall have to
satisfy that their writ petition does not
suffer from either laches and delays or
acquiescence.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
21/24
17. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 2
and 3 further relies on a judgment dated 22.02.2024 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 1063 of 2024 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court wherein the Co-ordinate Bench after considering different
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph
No. 10 and 11 has held as follows and proceeded to dismiss the
writ petition:-
“10. In the present case also the petitioner
waited till the decision of Prince Kumar &
Ors. ( supra) & other analogous cases and
approached this Court after a lapse of more
than five years of the arising of cause of
action and about one year of passing of the
aforesaid judgment in the case of Prince
Kumar & Ors. (Supra), hence the petitioner
cannot be granted the same relief, in view of
the delay and laches on his part in
approaching this Court and being mere
fence-sitter who had not taken up the
litigation at the appropriate time when the
other petitioners were decided by this Court,
especially when the Appellants of the
aforesaid LPA No.650 of 2022 (Prince Kr. &
Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) & other
analogous cases had approached this Court
by filing writ petitions in this year 2019
itself, thus apparently, the petitioner kept
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
22/24sleeping over his right for long and woke up
only when he had the impetus from the
judgment, rendered by the learned Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Prince
Kumar & Ors. (Supra).
11. It is well settled law that delay disentitles
the party discretionary relief under Article
226 and Article 32 of the Constitution of
India. Thus, the litigant who was sitting on
fence and waiting for the result of the
litigation initiated by other litigants promptly
and only after a favourable result, has
approached the Court to seek equality,
should not be encouraged/entertained.”
18. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 02
and 03 further relies on judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 4175 of 2024, order dated 16.07.2024 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 10450/2024, order dated 23.09.2025 passed in
L.P.A. No. 847 of 2024, judgment dated 25.07.2024 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 10898 of 2024, judgment dated 25.11.2024 passed
in C.W.J.C. No. 17575 of 2024, judgment dated 28.01.2026
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8068 of 2024, whereby the Hon’ble
Division Bench and the Co-ordinate Benchs have dismissed the
appeals/writ petitions involving identical matter.
19. From the argument advanced by the learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
23/24
counsel for the parties and after having gone through the
pleadings on record, including the different judicial
pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents No. 2 and 3, I find that in the present case also the
petitioner waited till the decision of L.P.A. No. 650 of 2022
Prince & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others and approached
this Court after a lapse of more than five years of arising of the
cause of action and about one year of the passing of the
aforesaid judgment in the case of Prince and Ors (supra),
therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted some relief, in view
of the delay and laches on his part in approaching this Court and
being merely a fence sitter who had not taken up the litigation at
the appropriate time, when the other petitions were decided by
this Court, especially when the appellants of the aforesaid case
i.e. L.P.A. No. 650 of 2022 and its analogous cases had
approached this Court by filing writ petitions in the year 2019
itself, thus apparently, the petitioner kept sleeping over his right
for long and woke up only when he had the impetus from the
judgment, rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Prince and Ors (supra) .
20. It is well settled law that delay disentitle the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17749 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
24/24
party discretionary relief under article 226 of the Constitution of
India, therefore, the litigant who was sitting on fence and
waiting for the result of the litigation initiated by other litigants
promptly and only after a favourable result, has approached the
Court to seek equality, should not be encouraged/entertained.
21. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned
hereinabove, I am of the view that the petitioner being a fence
sitter, cannot take the benefit of an order passed in the case of
persons who were vigilant of their cause and had moved this
Court within a reasonable period.
22. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the
present writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 06.02.2026 Uploading Date 26.02.2026 Transmission Date NA
