Upon timely fresh representation, the designated committee shall consider petitioners’ identical claims within twelve weeks.

The petitioners in CWJC No. 17954 of 2025 were serving or retired Assistant Professors of Adarsh College, Ghailardh Jiwachhpur, Madhepura, affiliated with Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University.

The petitioners in CWJC No. 20233 of 2025 similarly claimed relief concerning their service-related grievance before the State Government, the University, and the Nine-Men Committee constituted by the Government of Bihar.

The petitioners contended that their claims were identical to those considered by the High Court in CWJC No. 6943 of 2026, decided on 14 July 2026, and sought disposal of the present writ petitions in terms of that judgment.

In CWJC No. 20233 of 2025, the petitioners sought permission to implead the “Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman of Nine Men Committee of the Government of Bihar” as respondent no. 6.

In CWJC No. 17954 of 2025, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 1 of 2026 seeking deletion of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 and disposal of the writ petition in light of the judgment dated 14 July 2026 in CWJC No. 6943 of 2026.

Whether the petitioners’ claims, being identical to those considered in CWJC No. 6943 of 2026, should be dealt with in terms of the judgment dated 14 July 2026 passed in that case.

Whether the petitioners should be permitted to submit fresh representations before the Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman of the Nine-Men Committee for consideration of their grievances and consequential relief.

Whether the proposed amendment and deletion sought in the connected proceedings should be permitted.

Where the claims raised in a writ petition are identical to claims already considered in an earlier judgment, the subsequent petition may be disposed of consistently with that earlier decision, subject to consideration of the individual claim by the competent authority.

The Court also applied the procedural principles governing amendment of pleadings, impleadment of a necessary or appropriate party, and disposal of proceedings on the basis of a fair concession made by the State.

No independent statutory provision or precedent was discussed in the judgment; the Court expressly relied upon the order dated 14 July 2026 in CWJC No. 6943 of 2026.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ grievance was stated to be identical to the grievance addressed in CWJC No. 6943 of 2026.

The State’s counsel fairly submitted that the petitioners’ claims would be considered by the concerned respondents in the same manner as in the earlier case.

Accepting that submission, the Court considered it appropriate to dispose of both writ petitions in terms of the earlier judgment rather than adjudicating the individual service claims on merits.

The Court also permitted the requested impleadment and deletion of pleadings to ensure that the appropriate authority could consider the petitioners’ representations.

It also permitted impleadment of the Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman of the Nine-Men Committee as respondent no. 6 in CWJC No. 20233 of 2025.

Both writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 14 July 2026 in CWJC No. 6943 of 2026.

The petitioners were granted liberty to submit fresh representations, along with the present order and supporting documents, preferably within four weeks.

If filed within that period before the Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman of the Nine-Men Committee, the representation was expected to be brought to its logical conclusion, preferably within twelve weeks from receipt or production of the order.

If the petitioners’ grievance was found justified, the authority was directed to pass necessary consequential orders within the stipulated period.