Prince Raj v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5733 of 2025 ====================================================== Prince Raj son of Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, Resident of Shree Krishna Nagar, P.O.-Motihari, P.s.-Motihari, District-East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.
The Secretary, Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19, Harding Road, Patna-800001.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Standing Counsel (13) Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Parijat Saurav, Advocate Mr. Gaurang Darshan Dixit, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 30-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Technical Service Commission.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent to declare the petitioner as selected as Junior Engineer Post under the State of Bihar and Publish the final Result of petitioner after revising the result published on 20.12.2024, for selection of the same post in light of the vacancy Published by the Commission vide Advt. no.1/19.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after obtaining degree from the Swami Vivekanand
2/4 Institute of Technology affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalay in the name of Swami Vivekanand University Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, has appeared in the selection process for appointment of Junior Engineer in Government of Bihar under vacancy published by the Bihar Technical Service Commission, Patna. But, his candidature has not been considered.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Bihar Technical Service Commission submits that the petitioner has appeared in the examination process by virtue of certificate of diploma in Electrical Engineering in 2016. He submits that prior to 20172018, the said University was not permitted to grant diploma to the students of Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering, Sagar. It has been submitted that Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering, Sagar was affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogiki Sansthan, Bhopal before 2017-2018, but even then the Swami Vivekanand University has issued certificates prior to the said period which may be considered as illegal. It has also been pleaded that as per the report of Hyderabad Police, some persons used to sell fake certificates issued by Swami Vivekanand University by way of fake consultancy company to the students after taking huge money. Counsel submits that with
3/4 regard to another university about which the commission has found not genuine, this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4102 of 2025 ( Manohar Manjhi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) has rejected the claim of those petitioners vide order dated 18.03.2025 and observed that "this Court, at this juncture, cannot accept the pleading of the petitioners, more particularly, when a public office has made a particular remark/ground for rejection of the candidature of the petitioners. In view of this court, the only option left to the petitioners is to verify the truthfulness of the said remark and, then, come forward to this Court. Therefore, at this juncture, this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no need of any interference by virtue of entertaining the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed."
5. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Court that it is a specific stand of the Bihar Technical Service Commission that the degree of the petitioner is fake, as it was issued prior to 2017-2018, when the university was not permitted to grant diploma to the students.
6. In this background, this Court is not ready to interfere in the decision of the Respondent-Commission. It also transpires to this Court that counter affidavit with this stand has
4/4 already been received by the petitioner much earlier, but the petitioner has not come forward with any supplementary documents or papers to controvert the pleading of the respondents. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with I.A. No. 1 of 2026 stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U