Disposed¶33

Archna Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Mar 2026CWJC/6028/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reinstatement writ petition; JIVIKA / Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society (BRLPS); MBK post; order dated 18.12.2024 by Block Project Manager, Dharhara, Munger; mandamus; back wages; fresh appointment during pendency by fresh advertisement; relief against non-party (Sujit Kumar S/o. Sri Bachchu Tanti) sought via I.A. No.1 of 2025; I.A. rejected; writ petition disposed as infructuous; liberty to approach appropriate forum; Munger; Patna High Court; single judge Dr. Anshuman.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; I.A. No.1 of 2025 rejected and the writ petition disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. ¶33

Archna Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; I.A. No.1 of 2025 rejected and the writ petition disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2025, by which the petitioner sought to add further relief against Sujit Kumar (shown as respondent No.8), a person who was not a party to the writ petition, could be allowed. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

An interlocutory application by which relief is demanded against a person who is not a party to the writ petition cannot be allowed; I.A. No.1 of 2025 was rejected.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Since the relief sought in the writ petition was directed against removing a newly appointed person who was not a party to the writ petition, the writ petition had become infructuous; it was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Dr. Anshuman, J.), CWJC No.6028 of 2025, Archna Kumari v. The State of Bihar & others, decided 13-03-2026: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for reinstatement in her post as MBK with consequential benefits including back wages, after setting aside the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Block Project Manager (JIVIKA), Dharhara, Munger (letter No.BRLPS/ NRLM / BPIU / DHR /68/2024-25). During pendency of the writ petition a fresh person was appointed on the said post pursuant to a fresh advertisement. The petitioner's I.A. No.1 of 2025 sought further relief against the newly appointed person (Sujit Kumar S/o. Sri Bachchu Tanti), shown as respondent No.8, who was not a party to the writ petition. Held: relief cannot be demanded through an interlocutory application against a person who is not a party to the writ petition; I.A. No.1 of 2025 rejected. The writ petition having become infructuous was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6028 of 2025

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Archna Kumari W/o Krishndev Ray, R/o Village-Dharhara, P.S.-Dharhara, District-Munger, Bihar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society (JIVIKA) through its Chief Executive Officer, Patna.

¶8

The Divisional Commissioner, Munger.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Munger.

¶10

The District Project Manager, JIVIKA, Begusarai.

¶11

The District Project Manager, Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society, Munger.

¶12

The Block Project Manager, Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society, Dharhara, Munger.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

======================================================

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prem Chand Yadav, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4: Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, AC to SC-21 For Respondent Nos.2, 5, 6 & &: Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate Mr. Akshat Kumar, Advocate

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶19

3 13-03-2026

¶20

Ref: I.A. No.1 of 2025

¶21

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶22

Senior Counsel for the Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society and learned Counsel for the State.

¶23

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the concerned respondents to reinstate the petitioner after setting aside the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Block Project Manager (JIVIKA),

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.6028 of 2025(3) dt.13-03-2026 2/3

¶25

Dharhara, Munger vide letter No.BRLPS/ NRLM / BPIU / DHR /68/2024-25 dated 18.12.2024 and for further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in her post as MBK with all consequential benefits including back wages.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2025 for adding the further relief submitting that during pendency of the writ petition fresh person has been appointed on the said post by virtue of fresh advertisement.

¶27

But from the record, it transpires that in the I.A. the petitioner has demanded relief against Sujit Kumar S/o. Sri Bachchu Tanti showing him as respondent No.8; whereas in the writ petition there is no such respondent No.8 in the writ petition. Technically speaking that petitioner by virtue of I.A. has demanded relief against a person who is not party to the writ petition.

¶28

In this view of the matter, such interlocutory application cannot be allowed. Therefore, I.A. No.1 of 2025 is hereby rejected.

¶29

Ref: CWJC No.6028 of 2025

¶30

It transpires to this Court that writ petition was filed for reinstatement of the petitioner, but by the pleadings of the

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.6028 of 2025(3) dt.13-03-2026 3/3

¶32

I.A. it becomes crystal clear that for the post, petitioner wants his reinstatement after removing a new person, who has been appointed at his place, but is not a party in the writ petition.

¶33

In this view of the matter, it transpires to this Court that the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off with liberty granted to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy before appropriate forum.

¶34

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶35

Mkr./-

¶36

Archna Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archna Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakebul @ Safebul Vs The State of Bihar

Bhuar Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Taiyab Vs The State of Bihar

Prity Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Tarun Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar