Didn't Supreme Court's Constitution Bench hold that withdrawal of writ application will not bar invocation of jurisdiction of Court again in a petition under Article 226? Did it escape attention of Justice Harish Kumar?

Did Women Category candidate get 35% reservation in the appoint for post of Class-IV employees in Munger Civil Court  

In Anuradha Sinha vs. Registrar General, Patna High Court & Ors. (2026), Justice Harish Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 4-page long judgement dated June 16, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"....this Court finds that the present writ petition is nothing but a serious abuse of the process of the Court. Unconditional withdrawal of the writ petition bars the petitioner to file a second writ petition for the same cause of action not in terms with the Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but in terms with the Public policy, which bars a person to approach the Court time and again for the same causes of action. Reference in this regard is also taken to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mahanth Ram Kinkar Das Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, 2017 (1) PLJR 909." The other two respondents were: District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chairman, Appointed Committee of Munger Judgeship, Munger and Judge-in-charge Administration, Civil Court, Munger. The case was filed on April 16, 2026 and registered on May 13, 2026 by advocate Sheo Nandan Prasad. The respondent's counsel was Piyush Lall. 

In Mahanth Ram Kinkar Das case, the 11-page long judgment dated January 17, 2017 was authored by Acting Chief Justice Hemant Gupta on behalf of a 3-Judge Bench which included Justices Anjana Mishra and Sudhir Singh. It held that "16. The unconditional withdrawal of the earlier writ petition would bar the second petition on the same cause of action not in terms of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in terms of public policy of not permitting the litigants to come to the Court time and again on the basis of same cause of action."

Chief Justice Gupta had referred to a judgement by Division Bench of the High Court in a judgment reported as The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Shri Ramesh Prasad & Anr., (2015) 1 PLJR 645 considered the Puran Singh‟s case (supra) and held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure cannot per se apply to writ proceedings although certain principles enunciated therein have to be applied in writ proceedings from time to time. It was held that there cannot be any automatic application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the matter of writ petitions or writ appeals. In Puran Singh & others vs. State of Punjab and others, (1996) 2 SCC 205, Supreme Court had let the matter of procedure to be decided by the High Courts. 

But the Constitution Bench judgment reported as Daryao and others vs. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1961 Supreme Court 1457 and B. Prabhakar Rao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 210 has held that dismissal of the petition without speaking order which will include withdrawal of a writ application will not bar the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Court again in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.    

This judgment has been relied upon in the judgement dated June 16, 2026. The latter reads:"8. Considering the aforesaid factual position and the law settled in this regard, besides the averments made in the writ petition, which is nothing, but aspersion to a conducting lawyer, who had been engaged in earlier round of litigation, this earlier counsel and filing successive writ petition despite withdrawal of the earlier writ petition, this Court is of the view that a cost should be imposed, which is hereby quantified to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. The cost aforenoted must be deposited before the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee... " 

The petitioner had approached the High Court on being aggrieved with the final result dated July 29, .2017 published pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 2017 for the post of Class-IV employees by the District & Sessions Judge-cum-Chairman, Appointment Committee of Munger judgeship. The ground for challenge was only confined to the result which was published without providing 35% reservation to the Women Category candidate and, as such, 35% horizontal reservation to the women candidate has not been provided. 

The High Court had passed a 3-page long order dated February 10, 2026 passed by Justice Partha Sarthy in Anuradha Sinha & Anr. vs. District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Chairman, Appointment Committee of Munger Judgeship & Anr. (2026) C.W.J.C. No. 11974 of 2017. Prashant Sinha was the counsel for the petitioner. Initially, Mrigank Mauli was the counsel for the respondent, as per High Court's order dated April 18, 2018. The High Court's order dated February 9, 2026 showed that Piyush Lall, was the counsel for the respondent. The order dated February 10, 2026 also showed the same.  The case was filed on August 9, 2017 and registered on August 19, 2017 in the High Court. 

From which it emerged that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner along with one Shashank Kumar approached the High Court for identical relief and finally sought permission to withdraw the application. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. 

Piyush Lall, the High Court's counsel on behalf of District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Chairman, Appointment Committee of Munger Judgeship and the Judge-In-charge, Administration, Civil Court, Munger stated that notwithstanding the same, a fresh writ petition was filed for the same relief, but only with the change of the counsel. It was submitted at the bar that on the part of the petitioner that there had never been any instruction for withdrawal of the earlier writ petition; nonetheless, the writ petition was withdrawn on behalf of both the petitioners. The submission of the Advocate for the petitioner was nothing but an aspersion upon the earlier counsel, which is highly deplorable and unethical. Besides this submission, the counsel also urged that once the petitioner had unconditionally withdrew the writ petition, the second writ petition for the same cause of action cannot be maintained; and if the contention of the petitioner was true, then instead of filing the writ petition she should have filed a modification/review application through the same counsel, but the same was not done.