Devashish Thakur v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., throug its Chairman-cum-Managing Director

Patna HC8 Apr 2026MJC/351/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compliance MJC (Patna High Court, decided 08-04-2026) arising out of LPA No.582 of 2018; petitioner Devashish Thakur alleged non-compliance by BSPHCL and its officers with the 20.06.2019 direction for a fresh decision; court noted compliance order vide letter No.1542 dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure-P/6), held no further order required, and disposed of the matter with liberty to challenge the compliance letter. Judges: Sudhir Singh (author), Shailendra Singh. Keywords: non-compliance, same merit list appointments, BSPHCL, compliance order, liberty to challenge.

What did the court decide?

No further order required; petitioner given liberty to challenge letter No. 1542 dated 21.11.2025 (the compliance order) in accordance with law; application disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. ¶¶29

Devashish Thakur Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., throug its Chairman-cum-Managing Director — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No further order required; petitioner given liberty to challenge letter No. 1542 dated 21.11.2025 (the compliance order) in accordance with law; application disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite parties have complied with the order dated 20.06.2019 passed in LPA No. 582 of 2018, which set aside the Chairman-cum-Managing Director's order dated 15.02.2016 and the learned Single Judge's judgments and directed a fresh decision within three months. +1 more

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

Since, in compliance of the order dated 20.06.2019, an order has already been passed by the authority concerned (letter No. 1542 dated 21.11.2025), no further order is required to be passed in the present matter.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty, if so advised, to challenge letter No. 1542 dated 21.11.2025 in accordance with law.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, MJC No.351 of 2026 (arising out of LPA No.582 of 2018), decided 08-04-2026 (bench: Sudhir Singh and Shailendra Singh, JJ.; order per Sudhir Singh, J.). The petitioner alleged non-compliance with the coordinate Bench's order dated 20.06.2019 in LPA No.582 of 2018, by which the Chairman-cum-Managing Director's order dated 15.02.2016 and the learned Single Judge's judgments dated 23.08.2017 (CWJC No.7113 of 2016) and 26.03.2018 (CWJC No.5041 of 2016) were set aside, and a fresh decision within three months, with intimation to the appellants, was commanded. Senior counsel for the opposite parties (Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. and its officers) submitted that compliance had been effected by a detailed order conveyed vide letter No.1542 dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure-P/6). Held: since a compliance order has already been passed by the authority concerned, no further order is required; the petitioner is at liberty to challenge letter No.1542 dated 21.11.2025 in accordance with law. Application disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.351 of 2026

¶2

¶3

Letters Patent Appeal No.582 of 2018

¶4

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

¶5

Devashish Thakur S/o Awadhesh Thakur, Resident of Mohalla- Chunabhathi, near Mithu Mandir Chowk, P.S.- University Campus, District- Darbhanga.

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., through its Chairman-cumManaging Director, Bihar.

¶9

Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶10

Sri Vinay Kumar, Deputy General Manager (Human Resources and Administration), Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶11

Sri Ram Anugrah Narayan Singh, General Manager, (Human Resources and Administration), Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶12

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalit Kishor, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shubham Saurav, Adv. Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Adv.

¶14

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶15

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

¶16

4 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The present application has been preferred by the

¶18

petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 20.06.2019 passed in LPA No. 582 of 2018, wherein the following observations and directions were made by a coordinate Bench of this Court:

¶19

"Having considered the submissions

¶20

Patna High Court MJC No.351 of 2026(4) dt.08-04-2026

¶21

2/3

¶22

raised and having gone through the judgements cited at the Bar, we clearly find that the issue raised with regard to appointment from the same merit list in respect of the posts that had been left un-filled due to non-joining had been raised in the representation, in the writ petition as well as in the supplementary affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge. We do not find any consideration of the said issue either in the order impugned passed by the ChairmanManaging Director or in the impugned judgement. The reason given in the impugned order by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to the effect that no panel of candidates was notified so as to continue the appointment furthermore is clearly contradicted by the action of the respondent-Power Holding Company Limited in matters of such appointment as is clearly established from a perusal of Annexure-10/1 appended along with the supplementary affidavit filed in CWJC No.7113 of 2016. The reason, therefore, given by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director in the order dated 15.02.2016 is unsustainable. The second reason given that the service conditions of the candidates already selected has intervened and their consolidated pay structure has been converted into regular pay scale also does not stand to reason inasmuch as the same absolutely has no nexus with the nature of the issue raised, namely, if the post has been left unfilled and is vacant then it can be offered to the candidate from the same merit list. The reason, therefore, having no nexus with the direction given by this Court for consideration also does not stand to reason. Thus the order dated 15th February, 2016 on both counts cannot be upheld. The learned Single Judge has also not delved into this issue and has not recorded any finding.

¶23

Consequently, for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 15th February, 2016 as well as the impugned judgements dated 23.08.2017 and 26.03.2018 of the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.7113 of 2016 and CWJC No.5041 of 2016 respectively cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The appeals are allowed.

¶24

The respondent-Chairman-cum-Managing Director is commanded to take a fresh decision keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances

¶25

Patna High Court MJC No.351 of 2026(4) dt.08-04-2026 3/3

¶26

within a period of three months in the light of the observations made hereinabove and intimate the appellants accordingly."

¶27

Mr. Lalit Kishor, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that in compliance of the order dated 20.06.2019, a detailed order has already been passed by the authority concerned vide letter No. 1542 dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure-P/6).

¶28

Considering the fact that, in compliance of the order dated 20.06.2019, an order has already been passed by the authority concerned, this Court is of the view that no further order is required to be passed in the present matter. If so advised, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge letter No. 1542 dated 21.11.2025 in accordance with law.

¶29

With the aforesaid liberty, the present application stands disposed of.

¶30

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶31

( Shailendra Singh, J)

¶32

annu/Rajesh

¶33

Devashish Thakur v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., throug its Chairman-cum-Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devashish Thakur v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., throug its Chairman-cum-Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Bajrang Bali Construction Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

M/s R D Entrepreneur Vs The State of Bihar

J. Kumar Construction and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Bihar through Secretary, Rural Works Department

Satyendra Paswan Vs The State of Bihar, through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna

Lalan Ram Vs The State of Bihar