IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.538 of 2019

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6738 of 2016

======================================================

Minu Chaudhary W/o- Late Asoka Nand Chaudhary R/o- Village- Chauhta,

Ward.No.- 5, Dakshinbari Tole, P.O-Kamtaul, P.S.- Bisfi, Dist- Madhubani

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Sri.

R.K. Mahajan, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of

Bihar, patna

2.The Secretary, Higher Education, Sri. Girbal Dayal Singh Department of

Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, patna

3.The Director, Higher Education Sri Girbal Dayal Singh, Department of

Human Resources Development, govt. of Bihar, Patna

4.The Registrar, Col. Sri Nishit Kumar Rai, Lalit Narayan Mithila University,

Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga

5.The Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar nagar, Darbhanga

Through Its Registrar Col. Sri Nishit Kumar Rai

6.Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila

University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, Advocate

For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Apurva Kumar, AC to GA-12

For the LNMU : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 09-09-2026

Heard the parties.

2. The present contempt petition has been filed for non-

compliance of the order dated 18.07.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.

6738 of 2016, whereby the writ petition was allowed in view of

the decision in C.W.J.C. No. 17670 of 2017 and it was directed

that in terms of the decision in C.W.J.C. No. 17670 of 2017, the

husband of the petitioner deserves absorption in terms of the

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

2/27

direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahasangh

Case (supra) reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 (State of Bihar & Ors.

versus Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Ors) and in view

of the above, the action of the University reviewing the order of

the absorption was declared to be a nullity. The respondents were

directed to restore the husband of the petitioner in the status of

absorbed teacher with all consequential benefits. Final decision

was directed to be taken by the University within a period of four

months, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

there was a direction to the respondents to restore the husband of

the petitioner in the status of the absorbed teacher with all

consequential benefits and therefore the order was clear that he

was entitled for restoration of service and for payment of all the

consequential benefits. He submits that a show cause has been

filed by the University, wherein it has been stated that LPA No.

1556 of 2018 has been filed by the State and decision will be taken

after the final orders to be passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

Finally, the matter travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order

dated 19.11.2025 passed in SLP(C) No. 029618-029619 of 2024

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

3/27

(the State of Bihar & others versus Akhilanand Singh & Ors.),

disposed of the appeal preferred by the State, with certain

directions to the State and to the University. He submits that since

the appeal preferred by the State was disposed of by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, the University had no other option, but to

absorb the services of the husband of the petitioner and to grant all

consequential benefits to him. He submits that till date, the order

dated 18.07.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6738 of 2016 has not

been complied with by the respondents/opposite parties herein. He

finally submits that a show cause, supplementary show cause as

well as second supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf

of the University, wherein vide order dated 19.06.2026 passed by

the Vice Chancellor of the University has been brought on record.

From perusal of the order dated 19.06.2026 passed by the Vice

Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, it would

transpire that after considering the orders passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India on 19.11.2025 and after taking into

account all the relevant facts, the claim of the petitioner has been

rejected.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the University

submits that the order under contempt has already been complied

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

4/27

with by the University inasmuch as that the claim of the husband

of the petitioner has been rejected.

CONSIDERATION

5. Having considered the rival submissions and after

going through the records, it appears that C.W.J.C. No. 6738 of

2016 was filed by the petitioner, with a prayer to absorb the

services of her late husband from the date of his initial

appointment. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed

of by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court vide order dated

18.07.2018, whereby the writ petition was allowed and it was

directed that in view of the decision in C.W.J.C. No. 17670 of

2017, the husband of the petitioner deserves absorption in terms of

the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Mahasangh (supra)

and in view of the above, action of the University reviewing the

order of absorption is hereby declared to be nullity. The

respondents are directed to restore the husband of the petitioner in

the status of absorbed teacher with all the consequential benefits.

Final decision was to be taken by the University within a period of

four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the

order. It appears that C.W.J.C. No. 17670 of 2017 (Akhilanand

Singh & Ors. versus the State of Bihar & Ors.) was filed for

almost identical relief and the same was allowed vide order dated

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

5/27

17.06.2018 passed by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court. It

appears from the records that the matter relates to the appointment

of teaching/non-teaching employees of 4

th

phase College. The

matter with regard to the absorption of the teaching/non-teaching

employee of the 4

th

phase colleges travelled up-to the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

was pleased to constitute a one man enquiry committee, namely

Hon’ble Justice S.C. Agrawal Committee. After submission of the

report of by the Hon’ble Justice S.C. Agrawal Committee, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided the matter and accepted

the report of the Hon’ble Justice S.C. Agrawal Committee and the

objections thereto was rejected, however the persons aggrieved

were directed to approach the concerned High Court by filing their

writ petitions. The orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. versus Bihar Rajya

M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Ors. is reported in (2005) 9 SCC

129. Subsequent thereto, the case of the late husband of the

petitioner was considered by the University and his services was

absorbed. Later on, the same was again terminated, therefore, the

husband of the petitioner and other similarly situated teaching and

non-teaching employees approached this Hon’ble Court by filing

writ petitions. The matter again travelled up-to the Hon’ble

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

6/27

Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

constituted a one man enquiry committee consisting of Hon’ble

Justice S.B. Sinha. Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha committee

considered the cases of the absorptions of all the teaching and non-

teaching employees and favourable orders were passed in case of

some teachers/employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

again accepted the favourable report of Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha

Committee and directed the aggrieved persons to approach before

the concerned High Court. Being aggrieved with the non-inclusion

of the name of the late husband of the petitioner, the petitioner

preferred C.W.J.C. No. 6738 of 2016. Similarly situated teachers

also preferred different writ petitions. Finally, a Hon’ble Single

Judge of this Court vide his judgment dated 17.10.2018 passed in

C.W.J.C. No. 17670 of 2017 (Akhilanand Singh & Ors. versus

the State of Bihar & Ors.) allowed the writ petition and based on

the same, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was also allowed.

The State of Bihar being aggrieved with the orders passed in

Akhilanand Singh (supra), preferred L.P.A. No. 1556 of 2018.

The said LPA was heard along with its analogues cases and a

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dismiss the

appeals preferred by the State of Bihar by order dated 26.09.2022.

Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Hon’ble Division

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

7/27

Bench, the State of Bihar preferred Civil Review No. 54 of 2023.

The said Civil Review was heard along with its analogues cases

and a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated

13.03.2024 was pleased to reject the review preferred by the State

of Bihar. The State of Bihar preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C)

No. 29618-29619 of 2024. The appeal preferred by the State of

Bihar was heard along with its analogues cases and the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 19.11.2025 was

pleased to take note of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division

Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1117 of 2019 and the order

passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.

159 of 2021 and finally proceeded to record as under:-

“The order which is under challenge follows

as under:-

“The present appeals are similar to that

of LPA No.1117 of 2019 arising out of

CWJC No. 15583 of 2018 decided on

25.07.2022.

Accordingly, the present appeals stands

dismissed in terms of LPA No. 1117 of

2019 and connected matters.

CWJC No. 18592 of 2017 is de-linked.

LPA No. 404 of 2019 is also de-linked.

Relist LPA No. 404 of 2019 for hearing

27.09.2022.”

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

8/27

This was passed, placing reliance upon the

following order passed in LPA

No.1117/2019:-

“Heard Learned counsels for respective

parties. Learned counsel for the

appellants fairly submitted that the

present appeal is covered by decision

passed in LPA No.159 of 2021 arising out

of CWJC No.15778 of 2018 decided on

11.07.2022.

In the light of the order dated 07.11.2022

passed in LPA No.159 of 2021, the

present appeal stands dismissed.”

The aforesaid order was passed based upon

the earlier order passed in LPA No.159/2021.

The relevant portion is as under:-

“5. At this juncture learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that an appeal

has been preferred and it is numbered as

L.P.A. No.1556 of 2018 and accepting

consideration. Even assuming that in

CWJC No.17670 of 2017 if there are any

certain direction to the State, in that event

the present appeal could be distinguished

for the reasons that the learned Single

Judge in the present matter has directed

the 5th respondent to consider the

grievance of the respondent – Sunita

Mishra and there are no directions to the

State.

6. In the light of these facts and

circumstances both on the ground of

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

9/27

delay as well as maintainability of the

present appeal by the State of Bihar,

appeals stands dismissed.”

Thus, the petitioner(s) are not aggrieved, as

of now. Though learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners would submit that the

Learned Single Judge has made some

observations, the said observations will not

have any binding effect on the petitioner(s).

In order to resolve the dispute, we only say

that the University concerned is expected to

consult the petitioner(s) before taking any

decision, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, it is well open to the University

to consult the petitioner(s) before taking a

decision, in accordance with law.

Liberty is given to the petitioner(s) to

challenge the same in the manner known to

law, in case an order affecting the rights of

the petitioner(s) is passed.

The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed

of in the aforesaid terms.

6. From perusal of the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLA(C) No. 29618-29619

of 2024, it would transpire that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India issued certain directions to the University authorities. The

University authorities were directed to consult the State of Bihar

before taking any decision in accordance with law and it was

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

10/27

further directed/observed that it is well open to the University to

consult the State of Bihar before taking a decision in accordance

with law. The liberty was granted to the State of Bihar to challenge

the same in the manner known the law, in case of order affecting

the right of the State of Bihar is passed.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the

appeal preferred by the State of Bihar was disposed of by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, giving certain directions to the

University, therefore the orders passed by the Hon’ble Single

Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 17670 of 2017 Akhilanand Singh (supra)

and all other orders, including the order dated 18.07.2018 passed

in C.W.J.C. No. 6738 of 2016 (writ petition filed by the petitioner)

as well as the order dated 26.09.2022 passed in L.P.A. No. 1556 of

2018 and the order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Civil Review No.

54 of 2023, merged in the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLA(C) No. 29618-29619 of

2024.

8. The law with regard to the doctrine of merger is

required to be considered in the present case, before coming to the

conclusion that whether the order passed by the Hon’ble Single

Judge in the case of Akhilanand Singh & Ors. (supra) and the

orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

11/27

L.P.A. No. 1556 of 2018 as well as Civil Review No. 54 of 2023

merged, in the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India or not. For better appreciation of the

doctrine of merger, this Court would refer to a judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2000 (6) SCC 359

(Kunhayammed & Ors. versus State of Kerala & Anr.), wherein

in paragraph no.44 it has been held as follows:-

“44. To sum up, our conclusions are:

(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided

against an order passed by a court, tribunal

or any other authority before superior forum

and such superior forum modifies, reverses

or affirms the decision put in issue before it,

the decision by the subordinate forum merges

in the decision by the superior forum and it is

the latter which subsists, remains operative

and is capable of enforcement in the eye of

law.

(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of

the Constitution is divisible into two stages.

The first stage is upto the disposal of prayer

for special leave to file an appeal. The

second stage commences if and when the

leave to appeal is granted and the special

leave petition is converted into an appeal.

(iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of

universal or unlimited application. It will

depend on the nature of jurisdiction

exercised by the superior forum and the

content or subject-matter of challenge laid or

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

12/27

capable of being laid shall be determinative

of the applicability of merger. The superior

jurisdiction should be capable of reversing,

modifying or affirming the order put in issue

before it. Under Article 136 of the

Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse,

modify or affirm the judgment-decree or

order appealed against while exercising its

appellate jurisdiction and not while

exercising the discretionary jurisdiction

disposing of petition for special leave to

appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore

be applied to the former and not to the latter.

(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may

be a non-speaking order or a speaking one.

In either case it does not attract the doctrine

of merger. An order refusing special leave to

appeal does not stand substituted in place of

the order under challenge. All that it means

is that the Court was not inclined to exercise

its discretion so as to allow the appeal being

filed.

(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a

speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for

refusing the grant of leave, then the order

has two implications. Firstly, the statement of

law contained in the order is a declaration of

law by the Supreme Court within the

meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution.

Secondly, other than the declaration of law,

whatever is stated in the order are the

findings recorded by the Supreme Court

which would bind the parties thereto and

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

13/27

also the court, tribunal or authority in any

proceedings subsequent thereto by way of

judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being

the Apex Court of the country. But, this does

not amount to saying that the order of the

court, tribunal or authority below has stood

merged in the order of the Supreme Court

rejecting the special leave petition or that the

order of the Supreme Court is the only order

binding as res judicata in subsequent

proceedings between the parties.

(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and

appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has

been invoked the order passed in appeal

would attract the doctrine of merger; the

order may be of reversal, modification or

merely affirmation.

(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a

petition seeking leave to appeal having been

converted into an appeal before the Supreme

Court the jurisdiction of High Court to

entertain a review petition is lost thereafter

as provided by sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of

Order 47 CPC.ving been preferred or a

petition seeking leave to appeal having been

converted into an appeal before the Supreme

Court the jurisdiction of High Court to

entertain a review petition is lost thereafter

as provided by sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of

Order 47 CPC.”

9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case

reported in (2011) 4 SCC 602 (Gangadhara Palo versus The

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

14/27

Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr.), in paragraph nos. 5 to 9 has

held as follows:-

“5. We regret, we cannot agree. In our opinion, it

will make no difference whether the review

petition was filed in the High Court before

the dismissal of the special leave petition or

after the dismissal of the special leave

petition. The important question really is

whether the judgment of the High Court has

merged into the judgment of this Court by

the doctrine of merger or not.

6. When this Court dismisses a special leave

petition by giving some reasons, however

meagre (it can be even of just one sentence),

there will be a merger of the judgment of the

High Court into the order of the Supreme

Court dismissing the special leave petition.

According to the doctrine of merger, the

judgment of the lower court merges into the

judgment of the higher court. Hence, if some

reasons, however meagre, are given by this

Court while dismissing the special leave

petition, then by the doctrine of merger, the

judgment of the High Court merges into the

judgment of this Court and after merger

there is no judgment of the High Court.

Hence, obviously, there can be no review of

a judgment which does not even exist.

7. The situation is totally different where a special

leave petition is dismissed without giving

any reasons whatsoever. It is well settled

that special leave under Article 136 of the

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

15/27

Constitution of India is a discretionary

remedy, and hence a special leave petition

can be dismissed for a variety of reasons

and not necessarily on merits. We cannot say

what was in the mind of the Court while

dismissing the special leave petition without

giving any reasons. Hence, when a special

leave petition is dismissed without giving

any reasons, there is no merger of the

judgment of the High Court with the order of

this Court. Hence, the judgment of the High

Court can be reviewed since it continues to

exist, though the scope of the review petition

is limited to errors apparent on the face of

the record. If, on the other hand, a special

leave petition is dismissed with reasons,

however meagre (it can be even of just one

sentence), there is a merger of the judgment

of the High Court in the order of the

Supreme Court. (See the decisions of this

Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala

[(2000) 6 SCC 359] , S. Shanmugavel Nadar

v. State of T.N. [(2002) 8 SCC 361 : JT

(2002) 7 SC 568] , State of Manipur v.

Thingujam Brojen Meetei [(1996) 9 SCC

29 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1181 : AIR 1996 SC

2124] and U.P. SRTC v. Omaditya Verma

[(2005) 4 SCC 424 : AIR 2005 SC 2250] .)

8. A judgment which continues to exist can

obviously be reviewed, though of course the

scope of the review is limited to errors

apparent on the face of the record but it

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

16/27

cannot be said that the review petition is not

maintainable at all.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr

Sanjay Kapur has, however, invited our

attention to para 4 of the judgment of this

Court in K. Rajamouli [(2001) 5 SCC 37] ,

wherein it was observed: (SCC p. 41, para

4)

“4. Following the decision in Kunhayammed

[(2000) 6 SCC 359] we are of the view

that the dismissal of the special leave

petition against the main judgment of the

High Court would not constitute res

judicata when a special leave petition is

filed against the order passed in the

review petition provided the review

petition was filed prior to filing of special

leave petition against the main judgment

of the High Court. The position would be

different where after dismissal of the

special leave petition against the main

judgment a party files a review petition

after a long delay on the ground that the

party was prosecuting remedy by way of

special leave petition. In such a situation

the filing of review would be an abuse of

the process of the law. We are in

agreement with the view taken in Abbai

Maligai Partnership Firm [Abbai Maligai

Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran,

(1998) 7 SCC 386] that if the High Court

allows the review petition filed after the

special leave petition was dismissed after

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

17/27

condoning the delay, it would be treated

as an affront to the order of the Supreme

Court. But this is not the case here. In the

present case, the review petition was filed

well within time and since the review

petition was not being decided by the High

Court, the appellant filed the special leave

petition against the main judgment of the

High Court. We, therefore, overrule the

preliminary objection of the counsel for

the respondent and hold that this appeal

arising out of special leave petition is

maintainable.”

(emphasis supplied)

10. Similarly, a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court

vide its judgment dated 16.09.2016 passed in Civil Review No. 04

of 2016 (Sri Rajesh Kumar versus Smt. Pushpa Rani), while

considering the doctrine of merger, in paragraph nos. 10 to 13 has

held as under:-

“10. What the decision, in Meghmala (supra),

thus, lays down that if review petition has

been filed before the Special Leave Petition

is filed and dismissed, the review petition still

remains pending for consideration and

deserves to be considered. However, if such

an application for review was made after

dismissal of the review petition, then, the

process of filing of such a review application

would amount to abuse of process of the

Court and would, therefore, not be possible.

The conclusion, so arrived at, in Meghmala

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

18/27

(supra), runs contrary to the law laid in

Kunhayammed (supra), wherein the Court

has held that if the leave to appeal has not

been granted at the very threshold without

entering into the appellate jurisdiction, the

doctrine of merger would not apply and,

therefore, dismissal of the Special Leave

Petition without assigning any reason would

not subsume the order against which the

Special Leave Petition was filed. Hence, in

the light of decision, in Kunhayammed

(supra), notwithstanding the dismissal of a

Special Leave Petition, review petition is still

maintainable. The position of law, in this

regard, has been summed up, at paragraph

44, in Kunhayammed (supra), in the

following words:

“44. To sum up, our conclusions are :

(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided

against an decree passed by a court,

tribunal or any other authority before

superior forum and such superior forum

modifies, reverses or affirms the decision

put in issue before it, the decision by the

subordinate forum merges in the decision

by the superior forum and it is the latter

which subsists, remains operative and is

capable of enforcement in the eye of the

law.

(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of

the Constitution is divisible into two

stages. The first stage is up to the

disposal of prayer for special leave to file

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

19/27

an appeal. The second stage commences

if and when the leave to appeal is granted

and the special leave petition is converted

into an appeal.

(iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of

universal or unlimited application. It will

depend on the nature of jurisdiction

exercised by the superior forum and the

content or subject-matter of challenge

laid or capable of being laid shall be

determinative of the applicability of

merger. The superior jurisdiction should

be capable of reversing, modifying or

affirming the decree put in issue before it.

Under Article 136 of the Constitution the

Supreme Court may reverse, modify or

affirm the judgment-decree or decree

appealed against while exercising its

appellate jurisdiction and not while

exercising the discretionary jurisdiction

disposing of petition for special leave to

appeal. The doctrine of merger can

therefore be applied to the former and not

to the latter.”

11. There does exist a distinction between an

appeal and a leave to apply for appeal. When

an appeal is provided and the appeal is

preferred, the appeal stands instituted; but

when a leave for appeal is applied, then,

until the leave is, in such a situation,

granted, there is really no appeal. Hence, the

disposal of the Special Leave Petition or of

any petition for leave to appeal does not

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

20/27

subsume the order from which the appeal

arose, for, with the rejection of the petition

for leave, no appeal survived. Article 136 of

the Constitution of India deals with 'special

leave to appeal', which may be granted by

the Supreme Court. When special leave to

appeal is dismissed/disallowed by the

Supreme Court with or without a speaking

order, the order from which the appeal arose

does not merge into such an order, for, as

already indicated hereinabove, with the

dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, no

appeal survives and no appeal can be said to

have been borne and considered. In fact,

when the special leave to appeal is declined,

there is no appeal. Hence, question of the

merger of the order into the order declining

to grant special leave to appeal would not, in

the light of Kunhayammed (supra), arise at

all.

12. In the light of what have been held in

Kunhayammed (supra), the principles laid

down there being three Judge Bench is still

binding on us inasmuch as the reference,

made to a larger Bench by the order passed

by the three Judge Bench in Khoday

Distilleries Ltd. (supra), has not laid down

any law, as indicated above, and only

referred the matter to a larger Bench. The

decision, in Meghmala (supra), being a two

Judge Bench, we are presently bound by the

decision in Kunhayammed (supra), which

lays down that if a Special Leave Petition is

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

21/27

dismissed in limine without the appeal

having came into existence, because of the

leave having been declined, the doctrine of

merger will not apply and, therefore, a

petition for review of the order of the High

Court remains open.

13. Situated thus, we are clearly of the view that in

the light of the decision in Kunhayammed

(supra), this Court does have the power to

review if a case for review is made out.”

11. Even recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

a case reported in (2025) 3 SCC 543 (Balbir Singh and another

versus Baldev Singh (dead) through his legal representatives &

Ors.), in paragraph nos. 28 to 34, 49 & 50 has held as under:-

28. In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala

[Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6

SCC 359 : (2000) 245 ITR 360 : (2000) 119

STC 505] , while explaining the doctrine of

merger, this Court held thus : (SCC p. 370,

para 12)

“12. The logic underlying the doctrine of

merger is that there cannot be more than

one decree or operative orders governing

the same subject-matter at a given point

of time. When a decree or order passed by

an inferior court, tribunal or authority

was subjected to a remedy available

under the law before a superior forum

then, though the decree or order under

challenge continues to be effective and

binding, nevertheless its finality is put in

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

22/27

jeopardy. Once the superior court has

disposed of the lis before it either way —

whether the decree or order under appeal

is set aside or modified or simply

confirmed, it is the decree or order of the

superior court, tribunal or authority

which is the final, binding and operative

decree or order wherein merges the

decree or order passed by the court,

tribunal or the authority below. However,

the doctrine is not of universal or

unlimited application. The nature of

jurisdiction exercised by the superior

forum and the content or subject-matter

of challenge laid or which could have

been laid shall have to be kept in view.”

29. Further, while explaining the position that

emerges on the grant of special leave to

appeal by this Court [Kunhayammed v. State

of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 : (2000) 245

ITR 360 : (2000) 119 STC 505] , it was

observed : (Kunhayammed case

[Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6

SCC 359 : (2000) 245 ITR 360 : (2000) 119

STC 505] , SCC p. 383, para 41)

“41. Once a special leave petition has been

granted, the doors for the exercise of

appellate jurisdiction of this Court have

been let open. The order impugned before

the Supreme Court becomes an order

appealed against. Any order passed

thereafter would be an appellate order

and would attract the applicability of

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

23/27

doctrine of merger. It would not make a

difference whether the order is one of

reversal or of modification or of dismissal

affirming the order appealed against. It

would also not make any difference if the

order is a speaking or non-speaking

one.”

30. This position of law has been affirmed and

reiterated by a three-Judge Bench decision

of this Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v.

Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare

Karkhane Ltd. [Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v.

Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare

Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376]

31. The decision in Kunhayammed

[Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6

SCC 359 : (2000) 245 ITR 360 : (2000) 119

STC 505] was followed by a three-Judge

Bench decision of this Court in Chandi

Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad [Chandi Prasad v.

Jagdish Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC 724] , which

held thus : (Chandi Prasad case [Chandi

Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC

724] , SCC p. 731, paras 23-24)

“23. The doctrine of merger is based on the

principles of propriety in the hierarchy of

the justice delivery system. The doctrine

of merger does not make a distinction

between an order of reversal,

modification or an order of confirmation

passed by the appellate authority. The

said doctrine postulates that there cannot

be more than one operative decree

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

24/27

governing the same subject-matter at a

given point of time.

24. It is trite that when an appellate court

passes a decree, the decree of the trial

court merges with the decree of the

appellate court and even if and subject to

any modification that may be made in the

appellate decree, the decree of the

appellate court supersedes the decree of

the trial court. In other words, merger of

a decree takes place irrespective of the

fact as to whether the appellate court

affirms, modifies or reverses the decree

passed by the trial court.”

32. The decision in Chandi Prasad [Chandi

Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC

724] was followed by a two-Judge Bench of

this Court in Shanthi v. T.D. Vishwanathan

[Shanthi v. T.D. Vishwanathan, (2019) 11

SCC 419 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 787] ,

rendered on 24-10-2018 in the following

terms : (Shanthi case [Shanthi v. T.D.

Vishwanathan, (2019) 11 SCC 419 : (2019)

4 SCC (Civ) 787] , SCC p. 421, para 7)

“7. … When an appeal is prescribed under a

statute and the appellate forum is invoked

and entertained, for all intents and

purposes, the suit continues. When a

higher forum entertains an appeal and

passes an order on merit, the doctrine of

merger would apply. The doctrine of

merger is based on the principles of the

propriety in the hierarchy of the justice

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

25/27

delivery system. The doctrine of merger

does not make a distinction between an

order of reversal, modification or an

order of confirmation passed by the

appellate authority. The said doctrine

postulates that there cannot be more than

one operative decree governing the same

subject-matter at a given point of time.”

33. Thus, once the High Court allowed the second

appeals in favour of the plaintiffs, there was

evidently a merger of the judgment of the

trial court with the decision of the High

Court. Once the High Court as an appellate

court in second appeal renders its judgment

it is a decree of the second appellate court

which becomes executable hence, the

entitlement of the decree-holder to execute

the decree of the second appellate court

cannot be defeated.

34. The issue may be looked at from another

perspective in terms of the provisions of

Section 28 of the Act referred to earlier.

49. In CIT v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. [CIT v.

Amritlal Bhogilal & Co., (1958) 34 ITR

130 : 1958 SCC OnLine SC 59] , this Court

in para 10 observed as under : (SCC OnLine

SC)

“10. There can be no doubt that, if an appeal is

provided against an order passed by a

tribunal, the decision of the appellate

authority is the operative decision in law.

If the appellate authority modifies or

reverses the decision of the Tribunal, it is

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

26/27

obvious that it is the appellate decision

that is effective and can be enforced. In

law the position would be just the same

even if the appellate decision merely

confirms the decision of the Tribunal. As

a result of the confirmation or affirmance

of the decision of the tribunal by the

appellate authority, the original decision

merges in the appellate decision and it is

the appellate decision alone that subsists

and is operative and capable of

enforcement.…”

50. Thus, the Supreme Court merely reiterated the

observation of the Bombay High Court in

Tejaji Farasram [CIT v. Tejaji Farasram

Kharawalla, (1953) 23 ITR 412 : 1953 SCC

OnLine Bom 28 : AIR 1954 Bom 93] and

stated that the hierarchy of courts and

tribunals is to be maintained when the

decision is reversed by the superior court

and even when the superior court merely

affirms the decision of the subordinate

court."

12. Having considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon’ble Division bench of

this Court with regard to the doctrine of merger, this Court is of the

considered opinion that once the Hon’ble Supreme of India has

passed an order, whereby the order passed by the Hon’ble Single

Judge and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has

been considered and a direction has been issued to the University

Patna High Court MJC No.538 of 2019 dt. 09-09-2026

27/27

to proceed in the terms directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in its order dated 19.11.2025 and the petition filed by the

State of Bihar was converted into Special Leave to Appeal by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the cause to sue before this

Hon’ble Court no longer exists. Any order passed by the Hon’ble

Single Judge or the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, merged

in the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on

19.11.2025 and therefore any contempt would lie before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, on the

consideration made above, this Court is of the considered opinion

that no contempt will lie before this Hon’ble Court.

13. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is

dismissed.

14. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

AjayMishra/-

(Ritesh Kumar, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 31.07.2026

Uploading Date 09.09.2026

Transmission Date NA