Lokesh Kumar Verma @ Lokesh Verma @ Lokesh Kumar v. Magadh University, Bodh Gaya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1635 of 2026 ====================================================== Lokesh Kumar Verma @ Lokesh Verma @ Lokesh Kumar Son of Late Ramswaroop Prasad, Resident of C1, Flat No. 21, Samarth Nagar, Wadgaon Sheri, Temo Chowk, P.S. and District-Pune.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

Magadh University, Bodh Gaya through its Registrar. 2.

The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 3.

The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

4.

The Principal Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, Aurangabad. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate For Magadh University :

Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Magadh University.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for the grant of following reliefs:- (i) For the issuance of a writ of mandamus, and/or, any other appropriate writ/direction/order commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground on class-III post, as his father, who was a teacher in a constituent college (RLSY College, Aurangabad), died in harness on 13.08.2013.

(ii) For the issuance of appropriate writ/direction/order to ensure all consequential relief to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1635 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026 2/3 petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the RespondentUniversity submits that this writ application ought to be dismissed on account of delay and laches for the reason that the cause of action arose in the year 2013 but he has filed this writ application in the year 2026 after a delay of almost 13 years for which there is no sufficient explanation given in the writ application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph-8, the petitioner has given explanation for the delay. Paragraph-8 of the writ application is quoted hereinbelow for needful :- "8. That the petitioner pursued his case for compassionate appointment by calling upon the respondent authorities several times between 2013 and 2025.

However the respondents ignored the prevent request of the petitioner in this regard."

5. In support of the statement made in paragraph-8 of the writ application, no material/document has been enclosed with the writ application and only bald statement has been made.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above,

Patna High Court CWJC No.1635 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026 3/3 this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ application. It is accordingly dismissed for delay and laches. (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U