Abhay Kumar Sinha, S/o Shri Manoranjan Prasad Sinha vs State of Bihar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Pat) 387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR
Abhay Kumar Sinha, S/o Shri Manoranjan Prasad Sinha – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Saroj Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate

Table of Content
1. challenge to appointment criteria based on merit. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments against non-consideration of championship status. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
3. the prohibition against arbitrary changes to selection criteria mid-process. (Para 15 , 22)
4. state's defense based on delay and policy decision. (Para 16 , 18)
5. senior position in merit list critical for appointments. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
6. eligibility criteria must remain consistent throughout. (Para 24 , 25)
7. delay in claims undermines eligibility for relief. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
8. the standards concerning delays in claiming service-related rights. (Para 29)
9. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

HARISH KUMAR, J.

The petitioner is represented through Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, learned Advocate, the State through Mr. Saroj Sharma, learned Advocate and Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of the private respondent no.16.

2. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents no. 13, 14 and 15.

3. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to an order dated 06.08.2015 contained in Memo No. 11368 to the extent whereby the recommendation has been m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The provided descriptions do not contain any language suggesting negative treatment, criticism, or invalidation of these cases by subsequent decisions.

Followed / Affirmed Treatment:

None explicitly indicated. The descriptions focus on the legal principles established in each case but do not mention subsequent affirmation or adherence.

Distinguished / Clarified Treatment:

Tej Prakash Pathak VS Rajasthan High Court - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1001: "Eligibility criteria for recruitment cannot be altered after the process has commenced, ensuring fairness and adherence to constitutional principles."

* Explanation: This case emphasizes the importance of fairness in recruitment processes, a principle likely upheld in later decisions, but no explicit mention of its treatment is provided.

Reinforced / Confirmed Treatment:

K. Manjusree VS State of A. P. - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 258: "Changing the criteria after completion of the selection process and introducing a new requirement is illegal. SLP filed by a party who is not aggrieved, not a party to any of the writ petition that too belatedly, is liable to be rejected as not maintainable."

* Explanation: This case establishes principles regarding procedural fairness and locus standi, which are fundamental and likely reaffirmed, but again, no explicit subsequent treatment is provided.

Restrictive / Limiting Treatment:

Shiv Dass VS Union of India - 2007 1 Supreme 455: "Though in a case of pension, cause of action actually continues from month to month but that cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing writ petition and if petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally Court would reject the same or restrict the relief to a reasonable period of about three years."

* Explanation: This case discusses limitation and delay, common principles that are generally upheld, but no specific subsequent treatment is mentioned.

All three cases lack explicit references to subsequent treatment such as being overruled, criticized, or questioned. Without further case law references or judicial comments, their treatment remains unclear based solely on the provided descriptions. They appear to be foundational or settled principles, but whether they have been questioned or overruled in later decisions cannot be determined from this list.