The Bench held that the writ petition raising a dispute already dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench as not amenable to writ jurisdiction cannot be entertained. The court dismissed the application on the same ground.
The writ petition is dismissed as not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6072 of 2020
======================================================
Manoj Kumar, Gender- Male, aged about 42 years, Son of Shiv Chandra Yadav, resident of Village- Baryahi, Post Office- Samaria, Police StationBarauni, District- Begusarai- 851126.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Shekhar and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhukar Mishra, AC to SC 6 For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey and Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocates ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-02-2022 Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made
reference of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by him to submit that the authorities were required to examine the case of the petitioner. In order to understand the dispute, it would be appropriate to quote the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.6072 of 2020(2) dt.22-02-2022 2/2
28.08.2019, which reads as under:-
“The kind of relief prayed for in the present writ application is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the issue of equity and sympathetic consideration can be addressed by the BPSC if there is no misrepresentation of substantive nature.
The BPSC may consider the case of the petitioner, if others were allowed correction, the petitioner may also be extended benefit in similar terms.
Necessary decision in this regard may be taken by the respondents at the earliest preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the writ application stands disposed of.”
Thus, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that this
Court refused to entertain the writ petition treating it as not amenable to writ jurisdiction. In the present petition, the petitioner has again raised the same dispute.
In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed as not
amenable.
(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J)
Anand Kr.
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the authorities' refusal to examine the petitioner's case is amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the same dispute raised in an earlier writ petition disposed of on merits can be entertained in the present petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Co-ordinate Bench order in CWJC No.6072 of 2020 dt.28.08.2019Explained¶26
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manoj Kumar
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department
The Bihar Public Service Commission
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
