Puja Kumari vs The Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited, Patna Advocate - Vivek Prasad, ,Anand Kumar Ojha,Kumar Gaurav — CWJC/16590/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 15th June 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 09-Oct-2025

CNR: BRHC011058012025

e-Filing Number

26-09-2025

Filing Number

CWJC/24366/2025

Filing Date

27-Sep-2025

Registration No

CWJC/16590/2025

Registration Date

08-Oct-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman

Coram

Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CIVIL WRIT ( 15 )

Sub-Category

SELECTION , BOARD/CORP. SER. ( 2508 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

15-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Puja Kumari

    Adv. Sunil Kumar,Pankaj Kumar,Pankaj Kumar, ,Pankaj Kumar

  2. 2.Pinki Kumari,

  3. 3.Madhu Kumari,

  4. 4.Priya Kumari,

  5. 5.Khushbu Kumari,

  6. 6.Rashmi Priya Verma,

  7. 7.Girja Kumar,

  8. 8.Vivek Raj,

  9. 9.Sintu Kumar,

  10. 10.Indiwar Thakur,

  11. 11.Sachin Kumar,

  12. 12.Md. Imdad Baksh,

  13. 13.Prem Sagar Gupta,

  14. 14.Vivek Narayan,

  15. 15.Amarnath Bhandari,

  16. 16.Krishna Kant Kumar,

  17. 17.Ravi Shankar Chaudhary,

  18. 18.Md. Ziyaur Rahman,

  19. 19.Intekhab Hussain,

  20. 20.Nishant Kumar,

  21. 21.Ranjeet Kumar,

  22. 22.Pawan Singh Rathour,

  23. 23.Ranjeet Kumar,

  24. 24.Deepak Kumar,

  25. 25.Bimmi Kumari,

  26. 26.Aayushi Anand,

  27. 27.Shahin Kaushar,

  28. 28.Kumari Rimjhim,

  29. 29.Niraj Kumar,

  30. 30.Ranjeet Kumar Ram,

  31. 31.Rakesh Kumar,

  32. 32.Rohit Raj,

  33. 33.Abhishek Kumar,

  34. 34.Nitish Kumar,

  35. 35.Rajeev Kumar,

  36. 36.Bhagat Singh,

  37. 37.Dewendra Kumar,

  38. 38.Kartik Kumar,

  39. 39.Abhishek Kumar Ranjan,

  40. 40.Himanshu Shekhar,

  41. 41.Sudhanshu Kumar,

  42. 42.Ravi Shankar Prasad,

  43. 43.Upendra Kumar,

  44. 44.Ravi Shankar Kumar,

  45. 45.Pankaj Kumar Singh,

  46. 46.Bipin Kumar,

  47. 47.Rahul Kumar,

  48. 48.Guddu Kumar,

  49. 49.Vikash Vaibhav,

  50. 50.Vikash Kumar,

  51. 51.Sumit Raj,

  52. 52.Rajeev Kumar,

  53. 53.Praduman Kumar,

  54. 54.Dharmendra Kumar,

  55. 55.Prem Kumar,

  56. 56.Satish Kumar,

  57. 57.Ashirbad Kumar Shailendra Prasad,

  58. 58.Satish Kumar,

  59. 59.Vikash Ranjan,

  60. 60.Sandeep Kumar,

  61. 61.Rajeev Ranjan,

  62. 62.Shekhar Suman,

  63. 63.Prashant Anand,

  64. 64.Yashwant Ram,

  65. 65.Shashi Bhushan Kumar Das,

  66. 66.Sappu Verma,

  67. 67.Anil Kumar,

  68. 68.Basant Chaudhary,

  69. 69.Ranjit Kumar,

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited, Patna Advocate - Vivek Prasad, ,Anand Kumar Ojha,Kumar Gaurav

  2. 2.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited,

    Adv. Kumar Gaurav

  3. 3.The Managing Director-cum-Examination Controller, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited,

    Adv. Kumar Gaurav

  4. 4.The General Manager (HR and Adm.), Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited,

    Adv. Kumar Gaurav

  5. 5.The General Manager (HR and Adm.), North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited-cum-Chairman

    Adv. Kumar Gaurav

  6. 6.The Deputy Secretary, Appointment Cell, Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited,

    Adv. Kumar Gaurav

  7. 7.South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.,

  8. 8.North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.,

  9. 9.Bihar State Power Transmission Company Ltd.,

  10. 10.Bihar State Power Generation Company Ltd.,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Dr. AnshumanView PDF

  3. 15-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Dr. AnshumanView PDF

  4. 15-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Dr. AnshumanView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY Case: CWJC No. 16590/2025, Patna High Court (15-06-2026) Petitioners: 69 employees of Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited (BSPHCL) Respondents: BSPHCL and its subsidiary power distribution companies Decision: The court quashed the cancellation orders and directed the company to complete the internal recruitment process (ENN-06/2024) within three months, holding that cancelling a substantially completed recruitment process without valid reasons was arbitrary and violated principles of fairness and legitimate expectation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 28-Apr-2026

    For Admission

    Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman

  6. 27-Apr-2026

    For Admission

    Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman

  7. 22-Apr-2026

    For Orders

    Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman

  8. 24-Mar-2026

    For Orders

    Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman

  9. 23-Mar-2026

    For Orders

    Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman

  10. 17-Feb-2026

    For Admission V

    Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

  11. 09-Feb-2026

    For Admission V

    Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

  12. 06-Feb-2026

    For Admission V

    Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

  13. 05-Feb-2026

    For Admission V

    Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

  14. 04-Feb-2026

    For Admission V

    Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

  15. 03-Feb-2026

    For Admission V

    Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

  16. 31-Jan-2026

    For Admission V

    Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

  17. 29-Jan-2026

    For Admission V

    Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

  18. 28-Jan-2026

    For Admission V

    Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

  19. 10-Nov-2025

    For Admission - Fresh Cases

    Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar

  20. 09-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 27-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWJC/16590/2025

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY Case: CWJC No. 16590/2025, Patna High Court (15-06-2026) Petitioners: 69 employees of Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited (BSPHCL) Respondents: BSPHCL and its subsidiary power distribution companies Decision: The court quashed the cancellation orders and directed the company to complete the internal recruitment process (ENN-06/2024) within three months, holding that cancelling a substantially completed recruitment process without valid reasons was arbitrary and violated principles of fairness and legitimate expectation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case