Suman Kumar vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.889 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17892 of 2024
CNR No. BRHC010926242025
======================================================
1. Suman Kumar Son of Ramdhani Tanti, Resident of village- Charoun,
Nwagarhi, P.S. - Mufassil, Munger District- Munger.
2. Munna Kumar son of Sri Krishnanandan Tanti, Resident of Village-
Dharhara, P.S.- Dharhara, District - Munger.
3. Rajnish Prasad, Son of Umeshwar Prasad, Resident of Village- Sikariya,
Nawadih, P.S. - Karakat, District- Rohtas.
4. Dhiraj Kumar, Son of Lakhichand Prasad, Resident of Kagzi Mohalla,
Ranchi Road, P.S. - Biharsharif, District- Nalanda.
5. Rahul Kumar, S/o Yugal Kishore Prasad, Resident of Mohalla, Manpur
Shivcharal Lane Masjid Gali District Gaya.
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Secretary, Labour Resources Department,
Directorate, Employment and Training, Niyojan Bhawan 4th, Flour, Bailey
Road, Patna.
2. The Chairman, Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19 Harding Road,
Patna.
3. The Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19 Harding Road,
Patna.
4. The In-charge Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19 Harding
Road, Patna.
5. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19 Harding
Road, Patna.
6. The Director, Employment and Training, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Ram Shankar Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, AAG-1
Mr. Sarveshwar Tiwari, AC to AAG-1
For BTSC : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Jyoti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 05-11-2026

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
2/14
This intra-court appeal lays a challenge to an
Order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
CWJC No. 17892 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge
has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition filed by the appellants
herein by stating in paragraph No. 26 as under:-
“26. In view of the mandate of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Bhim Rao
Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna
(supra), as also the subsequent notification(s)
issued by the State Government, this Court
does not find any merit in the writ petition;
accordingly it is hereby dismissed.”
2. Some of the facts to be noted for the purpose of
this judgment are that the appellants herein were the applicants
for the post of Trade Instructor (Fitter) applied pursuant to
Advertisement No. 10 of 2023. They were aggrieved by the
Resolution dated 30.10.2024 of the Bihar Technical Service
Commission, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (in short ‘the
Commission’), whereby the Commission excluded the
appellants from the zone of consideration.
3. Suffice to state that the appellants herein had
applied for the aforesaid post by representing themselves to be
Scheduled Caste. It is their case that they have submitted their
caste certificates and they had also participated in the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
3/14
examination and declared successful, whereupon they have
been called for documents verification. It was also their case
that the Commission vide letter dated 15.10.2024 directed the
candidates to submit their valid caste certificates, failing which
the claim of reserved category may be changed or considered
appropriately.
4. The case of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 is that
they submitted their online applications under Scheduled Caste
category as they have claimed their respective caste category
on the basis of their caste “Tanti-Tantwa”.
5. It was the case that while the recruitment
process was in progress, the Department of General
Administration, Government of Bihar has in compliance with
the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Bhim Rao
Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna Vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 18802 of 2017) has issued a
Gazette Notification dated 12.08.2024. It is noted that by the
aforesaid Gazette Notification, the Labour Resources
Department vide letters dated 04.09.2024 and 19.09.2024 has
directed the Commission to rectify the merit list in view of the
mandate of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid Civil Appeal.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
4/14
6. It is also noted from the record that the
Commission had requested the appellants and other candidates
to submit on record, their respective caste certificates/non-
creamy layer certificates for grant of reservation benefit in
terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.
Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna (supra). It
was stated that the caste of all the appellants which was “Tanti-
Tantwa” prior to 2015, but later on their reservation category
was declared to be Extremely Backward Class (EBC) different
from Scheduled Caste (SC), the candidature of the appellants
was considered, however, they could not get the cut-off marks
under EBC category and thus were not selected.
7. The case of the appellants before the learned
Single Judge was the caste/category applicable for reservation
in the selection process must be based upon the category
existing at the time of advertisement or at the time of cut-off
date or submission of application and subsequent changes in
caste/category will not have any retrospective application. It
was also their case that the introduction of new criteria after
advertisement would render the selection process vulnerable to
challenge.
8. The reliance was placed on behalf of the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
5/14
appellants on the judgments of this Court in the case of Ram
Krishna Babloo Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C.
No. 10518 of 2013); Ashutosh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar
& Ors., 2015 (4) PLJR 609 ; Kusum Kumari Vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors., 2021 (1) BLJ 702 ; Registrar, Bihar Animal
Sciences University Vs. Md. Aman Hassan & Ors., (L.P.A.
No. 829 of 2023). It was also contended that the selection
process could not have been abandoned in mid-way. In support
of the said submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of
this Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Archana
Kumari & Ors., 2024 (2) PLJR 645 .
9. The case of the Commission was primarily that
in terms of the judgment in the case of Dr. Bhim Rao
Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna, (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has set aside the Resolution dated 01.07.2015
issued by the General Administration Department, wherein the
Court had held all such posts of the Scheduled Castes [reserved
quota] which have been extended to the members of “Tanti-
Tantwa” community appointed subsequent to the Resolution
dated 01.07.2015 be returned to the Scheduled Caste quota and
all such members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community, who have
been extended such benefit may be accommodated under their

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
6/14
original category of Extremely Backward Classes, for which
the State was directed to take appropriate measures.
10. It was also the case of the Commission that the
Gazette notification dated 12.08.2024 has been issued in
deference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.
Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna (supra)
and as the recruitment process has not been
culminated/finalized, the Gazette notification was made
applicable and the appellants were treated as the candidates
under the Extremely Backward Class Category.
11. It was the case that the appellants herein did
not get the cut-off marks under the EBC category hence they
have not been selected. Reliance was placed on the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh
Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 399 of
2022) to contend that an identical issue had come up for
consideration and the Court had held that in absence of any
specific observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, one
cannot draw inference that the judgment has prospective effect.
12. The learned Single Judge, after considering all
the pleas which have been addressed before him, has in
paragraph Nos. 21 to 26 held as under:-

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
7/14
“ 21. Suffice it to observe that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court time without number has made
it clear that in absence of a declaration that the
decision of the Court would operate
prospectively, it must be given retrospective
effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence vs Raj
Kumar Arora & Ors ., reported in, 2025 (3)
PLJR (SC) 124 while addressing the issue of
retrospective effect of a judicial decision has
been pleased to held in paragraph no.94, which
is as follows:
94. While addressing the issue of the
temporal and retrospective effect of a
judicial decision and declaring that a
tribunal or court is bound by a higher
court’s decision on the point in issue,
irrespective of whether it is declared
either prior to or subsequent to the order
which is sought to be called into question
by a party, this Court in Assistant
Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v.
Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange
Limited reported in (2008) 14 SCC 171
stated that a judicial decision acts
retrospectively by placing reliance on the
Blackstonian theory. According to this
theory, it is not the function of the court to
pronounce a “new rule” but to maintain
and expound the “old one”. Therefore, if
the subsequent decision alters or
overrules the earlier one, it cannot be said
to have made a new law. The correct
principle of law is just discovered and
applied retrospectively. In other words, if
in a given situation an earlier decision of
the court operated for quite some time and
it is overruled by a subsequent decision,

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
8/14
the decision rendered subsequently would
have retrospective effect and would serve
to clarify the legal position which was not
clearly understood earlier. Any
transaction would then be covered by the
law declared by the overruling decision.
The overruling is generally retrospective
with the only caveat being that matters
that are res judicatae or accounts that
have been settled in the meantime would
not be disturbed. The relevant
observations made by this Court are
reproduced hereinbelow:
“35. In our judgment, it is also well
settled that a judicial decision acts
retrospectively. According to
Blackstonian theory, it is not the
function of the court to pronounce
a “new rule” but to maintain and
expound the “old one”. In other
words, Judges do not make law,
they only discover or find the
correct law. The law has always
been the same. If a subsequent
decision alters the earlier one, it
(the later decision) does not make
new law. It only discovers the
correct principle of law which has
to be applied retrospectively. To put
it differently, even where an earlier
decision of the court operated for
quite some time, the decision
rendered later on would have
retrospective effect clarifying the
legal position which was earlier not
correctly understood.
36. Salmond in his well-known work states:
“[T]he theory of case law is that a

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
9/14
judge does not make law; he
merely declares it; and the
overruling of a previous decision
is a declaration that the supposed
rule never was law. Hence any
intermediate transactions made on
the strength of the supposed rule
are governed by the law
established in the overruling
decision. The overruling is
retrospective, except as regards
matters that are res judicatae or
accounts that have been settled in
the meantime.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. It would also be pertinent to observe here
that identical issue has come up for
consideration before the learned Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh
Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (L.P.A.
No. 399 of 2022) wherein the appellant, who
was a candidate for recruitment to the post of
Assistant Professor in pursuant to the
Advertisement No.52 of 2020 had claimed his
candidature under Scheduled Tribes Category.
However, despite the recommendation of his
name for appointment under the
aforementioned category, he could not be
appointed and thus on being aggrieved, the
petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No.9632 of 2022,
but the same did not get any succor and thus the
order of the learned Single Judge has been put
to question before the learned Division Bench
of this Court. It was the specific contention of
the appellant that he had participated in the
process of selection in terms of Advertisement
No. 52 of 2020 under the category of Scheduled

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
10/14
Tribe based upon Gazette Notification issued by
the State Government, bearing No.689 of 2016
dated 23.08.2016, wherein the ‘Lohar Caste’
was included in the Scheduled Tribes list.
Inclusion of ‘ Lohar Caste’ in Scheduled Tribes
list dated 23.08.2016 was the subject matter of
litigation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the Writ Petition (Civil) No.1052 of 2021 ( Sunil
Kumar Rai & Ors. Versus The State of Bihar
& Ors. ) in which the same was struck down on
21.02.2022.
23. Notwithstanding the aforesaid position, the
appellant had led his submission that on the last
date of submission of application, whatever the
status of the candidate was required to be taken
into consideration and since the Gazette
Notification dated 23.08.2016, insofar as
inclusion of ‘Lohar Caste in Schedule Tribes
List’, was very much existing in the eye of law.
Therefore, exclusion of the petitioner and
unsuiting him against the post of Assistant
Professor under Scheduled Tribe was wholly
illegal. The learned Division Bench of this
Court having taken note of undisputed fact that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has struck down the
State Government Gazette Notification No.689
of 2016 dated 23.08.2016 in the case of Sunil
Kumar Rai & Ors. ( supra), held the contention
of the appellant is not applicable to the matters
like status of a caste. The Court categorically
observed that the appellant has no indefeasible
right to claim over the post with reference to
Scheduled Tribe Category. Referring to the
decision rendered in the case of Tej Prakash
Pathak and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court
and Ors. , reported in, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 864
it has further been observed that no right to be
appointed merely because of placement in the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
11/14
select list, but State must justify the exclusion.
24. The Court further clarified that the
judgment whether it has retrospective or
prospective can very well be looked into by the
decision itself; in the absence of any specific
observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, one cannot draw inference that it has
prospective effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Kanishk Sinha & Another Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Another,
reported in, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 259 , held that
if there is no observation made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court to the extent whether any
Judgment has prospective or retrospective effect
in that event one has to draw inference that it
has retrospective effect. The learned Division
Bench finally on being found no merit in the
appeal, dismissed the same.
25. In the case in hand, from bare perusal of the
ruling in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar
Manch Bihar, Patna (supra), there is no iota of
confusion that it has specifically given
retrospective effect with a clear mandate, as
noted hereinabove.
26. In view of the mandate of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Bhim Rao
Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna
(supra), as also the subsequent notification(s)
issued by the State Government, this Court does
not find any merit in the writ petition;
accordingly it is hereby dismissed.”
13. The submissions of learned counsel for the
appellants are primarily the same as urged before the learned
Single Judge, (i) the selection process could not have changed
mid-way; (ii) the caste certificates which were in existence

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
12/14
were issued by the State Caste Scrutiny Committee; (iii)
applying new recruitment policy retrospectively to the on-
going selection process is impermissible; (iv) it is the caste
criteria prevailing at the time of submission of application form
should determine the selection process.
14. We are unable to agree with the submissions as
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. This is for
the simple reason that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Bhim
Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna (supra) was
concerned with the Resolution dated 01.07.2015 issued by the
General Administration Department, wherein a decision was taken
that all such posts of Scheduled Castes reserved quota may be
extended to the “Tanti-Tantwa” community. The Court held that all
such posts of the Scheduled Caste reserved quota, which have
been extended to the members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community
appointed subsequent to the Resolution dated 01.07.2015 be
returned to the Scheduled Castes quota and all such members
of “Tanti-Tatwa” community who have been extended such
benefit, may be accommodated under their original category of
Extremely Backward Classes (EBC). For this purpose, the
State was required to take appropriate measures. So, it follows
that the effect of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
13/14
Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna
(supra) is that “Tanti-Tantwa” caste be treated as an Extremely
Backward Class category. The appellants were considered,
belonging to Extremely Backward Classes Category and their
candidature was considered on the basis of the said caste.
15. It is the case of the Commission that none of
the appellants meet the cut-off marks as applicable to
Extremely Backward Classes category candidates and, as such,
were not found successful.
16. An issue arose whether the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court would also govern the advertisement
in question. The said issue is answered by the learned Single
Judge by stating in paragraph Nos. 21 to 24, which we have
already reproduced above. We agree with the above conclusion
drawn by the learned Single Judge on that issue.
17. In fact, the issue which fell for consideration
before the learned Single Judge was whether the Judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall have prospective and not
retrospective effect is no more res integra, as the issue is
covered by the judgment in the case of Ashutosh Kumar
(supra), except that in the said case the caste is “Lohar caste.”
So the aforesaid shows that the learned Single Judge has rightly

Patna High Court L.P.A No.889 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
14/14
held that unless specific observation is made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, one cannot draw inference that the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has prospective effect.
18. We are of the view that the learned Single
Judge has rightly dismissed the petition as the issue which fell
for consideration for treating the appellants belonging to
Extremely Backward Class was pursuant to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar
Manch Bihar, Patna (supra). We hold that the learned Single
Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition in the manner,
the learned Single Judge has held in paragraph Nos. 21 to 26
which we have reproduced above.
19. The appeal being without any merit stands
dismissed.
20. Pending I.A., if any, also stand disposed of.

(V. Kameswar Rao, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J) :- I Agree.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Guddukr/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE 28.09.2026
Uploading Date 05.11.2026
Transmission Date NA