SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3394

PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Partha Sarthy, J
Binod Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4034 of 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Chandra Mohan, Advocate, Mr. Puneet Siddhartha, Advocate, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3, Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate

The court affirmed the necessity for adherence to procedural standards in appointment processes, allowing the withdrawal of the petition based on the petitioners' request.

Headnote:The petitioners sought a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider their appointment to 3rd grade staff per advertisement no-08/87. The court noted the petitioners' entitlement but allowed withdrawal of the application leading to dismissal. The mandate of the court centered on procedural adherence over due appointments.

Table of Content
1. petitioners sought a writ for appointment. (Para 1)
2. counsel requested withdrawal of the application. (Para 2)
3. final ruling was dismissal of the application. (Para 3)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

6 20-01-2026 1. The petitioners filed the instant application for the following relief :-

“That the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ preferably in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents concerned to consider the genuine grievance of the petitioners appoint then on the post of 3rd grade staff in the light of condition mentioned in the advertisement no-08/87 at Serial no-3 that in future vacancies arises at the level of intermediate then post would be fill up aforesaid advertisement publish in the newspaper in the year 1987 as from the facts and circumstances of this case it would be evident that despite their entitlement petitioners were not appointed on the aforesaid post due to arbitrariness. And/or any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioners are found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. Mr. Chandra Mohan, learned counsel on instructions of Mr. Puneet Siddhartha, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application.

3. In view of the above, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top