Patna High CourtCWJC/3416/2007dismissed

Madan Mohan Meena v. The V.C.,L.N.Mithila Universit

2017-03-27Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3416 of 2007 =========================================================== Madan Mohan Meena, son of Sri Chand Meena Resident of village - Bhopur, P.S. Todabhim, District - Karauli (Rajasthan), presently resides at C-106, Millennium Apartment, Sector - 18, Rohini, Delhi.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.

2. The Registrar, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.

3. The Controller of Examination, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None.

For the L.N.M.U. : Dr. Anshuman, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-03-2017 This application has been filed seeking quashing of notice issued under the signature of Controller of Examination, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga (in short the "University") vide memo no. 1867/2000 dated 29.02.2000, whereby the result of all these successful students of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad Teachers Training College, Bangali Tola, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga has been cancelled.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of University stating therein that admission, as made in B.Ed. course in the said college, was found to be based on no selection process. Further, the institution was neither properly affiliated nor it had requisite recognition granted by the National Council

Patna High Court CWJC No.3416 of 2007 dt.27-03-2017 for Teachers Education. In that background, the said notice cancelling result was issued. Reasons have been discussed in the said counter affidavit as to why the result had been cancelled, which, in my opinion, are valid and plausible. No rejoinder to the said counter affidavit has been filed. The facts mentioned in the counter affidavit thus remain uncontroverted. In that view of the matter, no direction, as sought for by the petitioner, can be issued. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Rajeev/- U