Rajeev Nayan v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15867 of 2014 ====================================================== Rajeev Nayan, Son of Sri Arvind Kumar, resident of village - Baliya Bujurg, P.O. Rajhat ( Nawada ), District - Nawada .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through Director of District Education, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources and Development Department, New Delhi

2. The Vice Chancellor, SHIATS ( SAM HIGGINBOTTOM INSTITUTE TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE ) formally Allahabad Agriculture Institute, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh - 211007 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar (ASG) Dr. Punam Kumari Singh, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 22-06-2015 This writ petition is filed by way of Public Interest Litigation with a prayer to direct the respondents not to develop any colleges or universities that are not recognized by the University Grant Commission (UGC) and to punish such of the universities which are issuing false certificates to the teachers. From the pleading in the writ petition, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is mostly against the Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology & Science, Allahabad, which is impleaded as respondent no.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15867 of 2014 (2) dt.22-06-2015 2/2 The only document filed by the petitioner is an advertisement said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent inviting applications for various courses such as MBA, MCA etc. In case the 2nd respondent is not recognized by UGC, the certificates issued by it, would not be of any use. It is only when a candidate, who has studied in the institution comes forward with a complaint that he has been cheated or deceived, that the occasion may arise for taking any action. It was not even alleged that the petitioner made an application or has studied any course under the 2nd respondent.

We do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) mrl U