Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7830 of 2021 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava Son of Prem Chandra Prasad R/o MohallaChoukandi. P.S.- Sasaram, P.O.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Vice Chancellor of Magadh Uiversity Bodh Gaya.

2.

The Examination Controller of Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 3.

The Principal of S. Sinha College, Aurangabad. 4.

The Deputy Commissioner of Examination of Magadh University. 5.

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vikalp,Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kr. Roy-1, SC 13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 01-09-2022 The petitioner by the way of this writ petition has prayed for issuing directions to the respondents for issuing a certificate and also grant compensation.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner passed the examination ultimately in the year 02.03.2000. He was issued a provisional certificate in the year 2004 of having passed the PG in MA History in the year 2004.

Learned counsel submits that thereafter the University did not provide him the original certificate of MA. He had applied in 2017 for obtaining the original certificate. It is also noticed that the petitioner, thereafter, done PHD in April, 2005

Patna High Court CWJC No.7830 of 2021(2) dt.01-09-2022 2/2 for which certificate was issued on 16.09.2006. The petitioner seems to have not come with clean hands. It is apparent that if the petitioner had done PHD from the said University and has obtained the certificate thereto, obviously certificate of passing the M.A. must have been given to him in original, which he may not be possessing now and has set up a case for demanding original certificate after a long period of almost 21 years. The tenor of the writ petition shows that the petitioner is more interested in getting some compensation from the University. This Court does not find any fault on the part of the University as the petitioner either has not applied for the original for almost 20 years or has already obtained it and lost it and is setting up a false case of not having received original after 21 years to claim compensation. Bonafide of the petitioner does not seem to be genuine.

The writ petition is dismissed. No cost.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) amit/sachin Item no. 13 U