Pankaj Kumar Yadav, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6039 of 2022 ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar Yadav, son of Rajendra Prasad Yadav, resident of VillageDamgara, Ward No. 6, Police Station-Shankarpur (Singheshwar), P.O. Tengraha, District-Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Bihar State University Service Commission, Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Adv.

For the BSUSC :

Mr. Pawan Kr. Choudhary, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Amit Bhushan, AC to GP-17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 27-07-2022

1. Heard the parties.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Bihar State University Service Commission submits that the order dated 09.05.2022 deserves to be recalled, as selection process for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor under P.M.I.R. had been completed much prior to the order dated 09.05.2022. The Interviews were already over and the result was published on 27.04.2022.

3. Learned counsel submits that the result was published and it was very much in knowledge of the petitioner. However, the same was not conveyed to the Court on the day when the order was passed on 09.05.2022, directing for allowing the petitioner to appear provisionally in Interview. Thus, he prays for recalling of

Patna High Court CWJC No.6039 of 2022(4) dt.27-07-2022 2/2 the order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has no information about the result having been published.

5. I have considered the submissions, taking into consideration above facts, this Court finds that the order passed by the Court on 09.05.2022 could not have been implemented. In fact, it was the duty of the petitioner and his learned counsel to inform the Court about the result, which had already been published on the Web-site on 27.04.2022.

6. Be that as it may, in view of the above, the order dated 09.05.2022 is recalled considering that the result has already been declared. This Court does not find any good reason to further examine the matter as the question has become academic. The writ petition is rendered to have become infructuous.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Pravinkumar/- Item No. 9 U