Patna High Court
Rajeev Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 24 July, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11287 of 2025
======================================================
Rajeev Kumar Son of Late Ganpati Ram resident of Drainage Colony P.O.
Udakishanganj P.S. Udakishanganj, District - Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vishambhar Prasad, AC to AAG-5
For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Prachi Pallavi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-07-2025
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned
Counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission and learned
Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the
following reliefs:-
"I. For directing the
Chairman, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Patna (Respondents No.-
2) and the District Magistrate
Madhepura (Respondents No.- 4) to
appoint/join the petitioner
immediately on sympathetically
Patna High Court CWJC No.11287 of 2025 dt.24-07-2025
2/7
ground because the petitioner and his
whole family members are moving
from the hand to mouth, the petitioner
will have to challenge letter No.- 245-
1/Est. dated 23.10.2003 Collectorate,
Madhepura (General Branch), in the
year 2003-2004 which is annexed in
Annexure – 3, but he did not challenge
the order due to lack of Knowledge
(Annexure-11 & Annexures-12).
II. For grant of any other
relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is
legally bound to be entitled in the
facts and Circumstances of the Case.”
3. After some argument learned Counsel for the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the Bihar Public Service
Commission submits that for the same cause of action petitioner
has earlier moved before this Court in CWJC No.10644 of 2012
and the same was dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2020. He
again moved before this Court in L.P.A. No.119 of 2020 and
vide order dated 17.12.2024 his L.P.A. was rejected. Thereafter,
the petitioner has moved before this Hon’ble Court with same
relief on the ground that one CWJC has decided by another
Bench vide order dated 08.10.2024 passed in CWJC No.15368
of 2023.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11287 of 2025 dt.24-07-2025
3/7
5. In the light of the submissions made, this Court is
of the view that the judicial discipline has to be maintained in
the legal proceedings when the matter has already been tested in
CWJC and L.P.A., then again raising the same matter before the
writ Court is not maintainable in the light of the judicial
decision made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Election
Commission of India and Another reported in (2025) 2
Supreme Court Cases 732, whose paragraphs 107 to 111 are
very much relevant which states as follows:
“107. It is pertinent to reiterate
that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable
to writ petitions under Article 32 and Article
226 as well. The inclusion of the term
“public right” in Explanation VI of Section
11 of the Civil Procedure d Code, 1908 aims
to avoid redundant legal disputes
concerning public rights. Given this
clarification, there is no room for debate
regarding the application of Section 11 to
matters of public interest litigation presented
through writ petitions.
108. In Daryao v. State of U.P.
[1961 SCC OnLine SC 21: (1962) 1 SCR
574], a Constitution Bench of this Court
emphasised that the rule of res judicata is
Patna High Court CWJC No.11287 of 2025 dt.24-07-2025
4/7founded on significant public policy
considerations rather than being a mere
technicality. It was clarified that petitioners
seeking to challenge a decision must present
new grounds distinct from those previously
raised in order to escape the bar of res
judicata. The Bench articulated this as
follows: (SCC OnLine SC para 31)
“31…. We are satisfied that
a change in the form of attack against
the f impugned statute would make no
difference to the true legal position
that the writ petition in the High
Court and the present writ petition are
directed against the same statute and
the grounds raised by the petitioner in
that behalf are substantially the
same.”
109. Another Constitution Bench
of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg.
Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra
[(1990) 2 SCC 715: 1990 SCC (L&S) 339]
followed the aforesaid dictum 9 to hold that
the principles of res judicata are not foreign
to writ petitions. A reference may be made to
the following paragraph: (SCC pp. 740-41,
para 35)
“35…. It is well established
that the principles of res judicata are
applicable to writ petitions. The relief
Patna High Court CWJC No.11287 of 2025 dt.24-07-2025
5/7
prayed for on behalf of the petitioner
in the present case is the same as he
would have, in the event of his
success, obtained in the earlier writ
petition before the High Court. The
petitioner in reply contended that
since the special leave petition before
this Court was dismissed in limine
without giving any reason, the order
cannot be relied upon for a plea of res
judicata. The answer is that it is not
the order of this Court dismissing the
special leave petition which is being
relied upon; the plea of res judicata
has been pressed on the basis of the
High Court’s judgment which became
final after the dismissal of the special
leave petition. In similar situation a
Constitution Bench of this Court in
Daryao v. State of U.P. [1961 SCC
OnLine SC 21: (1962) 1 SCR 574]
held that where the High Court
dismisses a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution after hearing
the matter on the merits, a subsequent
petition in the Supreme Court under
Article 32 on the same facts and for
the same reliefs filed by the same
parties will be barred by the general
principle of res judicata. The binding
Patna High Court CWJC No.11287 of 2025 dt.24-07-2025
6/7
character of judgments of courts of
competent jurisdiction is in essence a
part of the rule of law on which the
administration of justice, so much
emphasised by the Constitution, is
founded and a judgment of the High
Court under Article 226 passed after a
hearing on the merits must bind the
parties till set aside in appeal as
provided by the Constitution and
cannot be permitted to be
circumvented by a petition under
Article 32. An attempted change in the
form of the petition or the grounds
cannot be allowed to defeat the
plea….”
110. No doubt, res judicata bars
parties from re-litigating issues that have
been conclusively settled. It is true that this
principle is not rigid in cases of substantial
public interest and constitutional courts are
empowered to adopt a flexible approach in
such cases, acknowledging their far-
reaching public e interest ramifications.
111. However, this standard is
applicable only when substantial evidence is
presented to validate the irreversible harm
or detriment to the public good resulting
from the action impugned. The Court must
Patna High Court CWJC No.11287 of 2025 dt.24-07-2025
7/7
come to the conclusion that the petition is
not just an old wine in a new bottle, but
rather raises substantial grounds not
previously addressed in litigation. Only
under these circumstances may it consider
such a petition; otherwise, it is within its
authority to dismiss it at the threshold.”
6. In the light of the judicial discipline of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ
petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 26.07.2025 Transmission Date
[ad_1]
Source link