Disposed¶24

Shanti Devi and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC16 Feb 2026CWJC/8318/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWJC 8318/2017, Patna High Court, Partha Sarthy J., 16-02-2026: writ disposed of; petitioners sought regularization as Safai Karamchari in Jail Department and Class VI pay scale; candidature rejected by Departmental Committee order dated 24.11.2016, unchallenged; liberty to file fresh representation for reconsideration within four weeks, to be decided in accordance with law within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were permitted to file a fresh representation/petition praying for reconsideration of the rejection of their candidature within four weeks; the competent authority is to consider and decide the same in accordance with law within two months from the date of its filing. ¶24

Shanti Devi and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization of their service on the post of SAFAI KARAMCHARI in the Jail Department and payment of salary as prescribed for Class VI employee, with all consequential benefits. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioners file a representation/petition praying for reconsideration of the rejection of their candidature within a period of four weeks, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of its filing.

¶28

Key takeaways

The writ application is disposed of in view of the facts and circumstances stated, with the above observations and directions.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Partha Sarthy, J.), by order dated 16-02-2026, disposed of CWJC No. 8318 of 2017 filed by Shanti Devi and Laxmi Devi seeking issuance of writ/direction for regularization of their service on the post of SAFAI KARAMCHARI in the Jail Department, payment of salary as prescribed for Class VI employee, and all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the petitioners' candidature had been rejected by the Departmental Committee by order dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4), and that this order of rejection had not been challenged in the writ application. Counsel for the petitioners, referring to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the rejoinder, submitted that the respondents had erred in rejecting the candidature, and stated he would file a fresh representation before the competent authority praying for reconsideration; it was also submitted that the petitioners are still working. Disposing of the application, the Court directed that if the petitioners file such a representation within four weeks, it shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within two months from the date of its filing.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8318 of 2017

¶2

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

¶3

Shanti Devi wife of Virendra Pandit resident of village Tareganadih, P.S. Masaurhi, District Patna.

¶4

Laxmi Devi wife of Satyendra Mochi resident of village Hathia, Kansarai, P.S. Maner, District Patna.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through Secretary Home (Jail) Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna.

¶8

The Director General of Police, Main Secretariat, Patna.

¶9

The Inspector General (Prison) Home (Jail) Department, Main Secretariat, Patna.

¶10

The Superintendent, Sub Jail Masaurhi.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar- Gp4 ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 16-02-2026

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶16

counsel for the respondents.

¶17

The petitioners have filed the instant application for

¶18

the following relief(s):

¶19

“That this application is being filed for issuance of writs/order/ orders and/or direction/ directions for commanding the respondents concerned for regularizing service of the petitioner on the post of SAFAI KARAMCHARI in the Jail Department and further for making payment of salary as prescribed for Class VI employee and also further to grant all consequential benefit to the petitioner for which they

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.8318 of 2017(3) dt.16-02-2026 2/3

¶21

are entitled for.”

¶22

At the outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the case of the petitioners was considered by the respondents and by order dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.1, 3 and 4), the Departmental Committee rejected the candidature of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the said order of rejection has not been challenged by the petitioners in the instant writ application.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the statements made in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit and more particularly paragraph nos.4 and 5 thereof, submits that the respondents have erred in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners. He will be filing a fresh representation raising the issues in paragraph nos.4 and 5 of the rejoinder before the competent authority praying for reconsideration of the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature. It is further submitted that the petitioners are still working.

¶24