Priyanka Sinha vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13247 of 2026
======================================================
Priyanka Sinha D/o- Kaushal Kishor Sinha, R/o- Bari Inara, Karay Parsuray,
Nalanda Bihar- 801304.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Development, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. Chairman, Board of Control, A. N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies
(ANSISS), Patna.
4. Director, A. N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies (ANSISS), Patna.
5. Registrar (I/c), A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Krishna, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur, AC to GP-27
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-08-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
A. A writ in the nature of MANDAMUS or any
other appropriate writ/s, Order/s, direction/s,
commanding the respondents for the
following:-
(i) To stay the confirmation of the recruitment
of Administrator, Anugraha Narayan Sinha
Institute of Social Studies (ANSISS), Patna
who has been selected contrary to the
decision of the Board of Control of ANSISS.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13247 of 2026 dt.31-08-2026
2/10
(ii) To call for the entire records relating to the
recruitment for the Advertisement post of
Administrator, ANSISS pursuant to No.
ANS/DIR/24/2024 dated 10.06.2024,
including scrutiny records, evaluation
sheets, merit list, interview proceedings,
minutes of the Selection Committee and
Board of Control, approval records,
appointment order(s), and all connected
documents.
(iii) To direct the Institute to declare and publish
the final result, complete merit list, marks
awarded, selection criteria, and reasons for
selection or rejection of candidates.
(iv) To examine the arbitrariness of the
recruitment process.
(v) To quash the appointment of any selected
candidate found ineligible or appointed in
violation of the prescribed procedure,
eligibility criteria, or statutory provisions.
(vi) To direct the Respondents to conduct a fresh,
fair, transparent, and merit-based
recruitment, under independent supervision,
if the existing selection process is found to
be vitiated.
(vii) To direct the Respondents to furnish all
information and certified documents sought
by the Petitioner under the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
(viii) To direct the competent authority to fix
responsibility on officials found responsible
for violating the recruitment rules,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13247 of 2026 dt.31-08-2026
3/10
Advertisement No. ANS/DIR/24/2024, or the
disclosure provisions under the RTI Act, and
initiate appropriate departmental and,
where warranted, criminal proceedings in
accordance with law.
(ix) To direct the Respondent No. 4 to respond to
the Petitioner's representation dated
23.05.2026.
(x) To pass such other order(s), including
exemplary costs, compensation, or any other
relief, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the interest of justice.
B. To any other relief to which the petitioner is
entitled to.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is an accomplished profession holding a Master of
Computer Applications (MCA) Degree. She has served for almost
12 years in a leading PSU Bank with strong academic foundation
and deep rooted administrative expertise. She submitted an
application for the post of Administrator at A.N. Sinha Institute of
Social Studies, Patna, pursuant to the advertisement dated
10.06.2024. The petitioner received an email communication dated
11.02.2025, whereby she was asked for her qualifications and
experience certificates. Later on, she received an information with
regard to an offline interview, which was scheduled on 27.02.2025.
The petitioner came to know through email dated 25.02.2025, i.e.
two days prior to the scheduled date of interview that the interview
Patna High Court CWJC No.13247 of 2026 dt.31-08-2026
4/10
has been cancelled. An email communication dated 24.05.2025,
issued from the office of the Registrar, A.N. Sinha Institute of
Social Studies, the petitioner was informed that the interview
would be conducted online on 04.06.2025 at 04:00 P.M.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits
that on 04.06.2025, the interview was again cancelled and it was
rescheduled to 11.06.2025. The same was again cancelled on
11.06.2025 and was postponed to 12.06.2025. Finally, the
interview was conducted on 14.06.2025 at 06:00 P.M. through
Google Meet and the candidates, including the petitioner appeared
for the online interview conducted via Google Meet. He submits
that despite the interview being conducted on 14.06.2025, no result
was notified or uploaded on the website of the A.N. Sinha Institute
of Social Studies. The petitioner came to know that the Board of
Control of A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies has approved the
selection on 04.07.2025. The petitioner submitted her application
before the authorities concerned of the Institute under Right to
Information Act for providing certain information. Although, she
received a reply on 21.01.2026 from the Registrar In-charge of the
Institute, whereby it was informed to the petitioner that the BOC
has approved a panel of six candidates for the post of
Administrator, which did not include the name of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13247 of 2026 dt.31-08-2026
5/10
Subsequently, vide letter dated 11.02.2026 of the Registrar In-
charge of the Institute, the petitioner was informed that one of the
candidates, namely, Vikrant Kumar, who was one of the shortlisted
candidates, amongst the six shortlisted candidates, had joined on
the post of Administrator. The petitioner kept on asking for certain
information with regard to marks obtained by the shortlisted
candidates through the Right to Information Act, however it is the
case of the petitioner that the Institute kept on providing evasive
reply, although in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Public Information Officer and
Registrar & Anr. Versus Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr.
passed in Appeal (C) No(s). 2783 of 2025 , whereby the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has affirmed the orders/directions of the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which held that requests for
disclosure of marks obtained by other candidates in a public
examination under the Right to Information Act 2005, has to be
given.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India reported in AIR 2018 SC 4806 (Swapnil Tripathi versus the
Supreme Court of India) , it was observed that “Above all,
sunlight is the best disinfectant” echoing the words of Louis
Patna High Court CWJC No.13247 of 2026 dt.31-08-2026
6/10
Brandeis, the judge of the US Supreme Court, it was observed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that “If the broad light of the
day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the
sun disinfects” and “the light of day is the best disinfectant.” He
submits that despite repeated request made by the petitioner, the
petitioner has not been provided with the information, so sought
for by her through her applications under Right to Information Act
and the authorities of the A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies are
sitting tight over the matter. He submits that the petitioner was
shortlisted for interview for recruitment on the post of
Administrator, the information regarding her shortlisting for
interview was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated
20.02.2025, but even then, she was not made aware that whether
final result has been published or not.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits
that unless details about the eligibility of the Members of the
Screening Committee is made public, the fairness in the selection
process cannot be deemed transparent. These details will throw
light on whether Members of the Screening Committee were the
same people and/or whether the Members of the Selection
Committee can also be Members of the Screening Committee and
vice versa. He submits that although it was not specified in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13247 of 2026 dt.31-08-2026
7/10
advertisement, the compelling circumstances under which the then
Director, A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies chose to conduct
online interview for the post of Administrator, instead of offline
interview, after repeated postponement is not clear. He submits
that the petitioner fulfills and matches the requirement, which was
prescribed in the advertisement and even then, she had not been
selected. He submits that a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court
in L.P.A. No. 1003 of 2024 (Dr. Shishu Pal Singh @ Shishu Pal
Singh versus the State of Bihar & Ors.) , by referring to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the
selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with
the stipulated selection procedure specified in the advertisement
and the same has to be maintained, unless otherwise specified by
the Rules. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in a case reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 167
(Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel versus the State of Gujarat and
Ors.) , has held that an advertisement binds the parties and carries
the force of a statutory prescription unless contrary to the
governing rules. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in a Constitution Bench judgment reported in (2025) 2 SCC
1 (Tej Prakash Pathak versus Rajasthan High Court) , has
reaffirmed that the doctrine against changing the rules of the game
Patna High Court CWJC No.13247 of 2026 dt.31-08-2026
8/10
midway is a facet of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and
ensures fairness in public employment.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits
that the respondents be directed to provide details about the
Screening Committee, the Selection Committee with regard to
compliance with the decision of the Board of Control of the A.N.
Sinha Institute of Social Studies in the matter of composition of
the Selection Committee for appointment of Administrator and to
provide the details about the eligibility of the Members of the
Screening Committee. They should inform whether members of
the Screening Committee can be Members of the Selection
Committee and vice versa . They be directed that the Standard
Operative Procedure of the institute for conduct of online
interview, instead of offline interview, should be published by the
authorities.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State raises a
preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ
petition on the ground that one Vikrant Kumar has already joined
on the post of Administrator and the petitioner has not impleaded
the said Vikrant Kumar as party respondent in the present writ
petition.
CONSIDERATION
Patna High Court CWJC No.13247 of 2026 dt.31-08-2026
9/10
9. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that vide Annexure-P/2 to the
writ petition, the petitioner in reply to her application under the
Right to Information Act was informed by the In-charge Registrar
of the Institute vide his letter dated 11.02.2026, with regard to
joining on the post of Administrator by one Vikrant Kumar. It is
not in dispute that the petitioner has got knowledge of the joining
of the said Vikrant Kumar through the letter dated 11.02.2026.
This Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition, when the
preliminary objection was raised by the State with regard to
maintainability of the writ petition, granted indulgence to the
petitioner for impleading the selected candidate, who has joined on
the post of Administrator, which appears from the letter dated
11.02.2026 of the In-charge Registrar of the institute, however the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner refused to do
so. Considering that one of the candidates, namely, Vikrant Kumar
has already joined on the post, which appears from the letter dated
11.02.2026 and despite opportunity granted by this Court to
implead said Vikrant Kumar as party respondent, since he is the
necessary party, on account of his joining on the post of
Administrator and the refusal of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court finds it fit to reject the writ petition on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13247 of 2026 dt.31-08-2026
10/10
ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties, since any orders to
be passed by this Court, on the prayers made in the writ petition,
will affect his selection and joining.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-
joinder of the necessary parties.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02.09.2026
Transmission Date NA