Kaushal Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10632 of 2015 ====================================================== Kaushal Kumar Jha S/o Sri Binod Chandra Jha Resident of Mohalla Hanuman Nagar Colony, Stadium Road, P.S. Madhubani Town, District Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar, represented through the Principle Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar 2.

Chancellor of the University, Governor's Sacretariat, Raj Bhawan, Bihar, Patna.

3.

Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. 5.

Registrar, lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. 6.

Director, Directorate of Distance Education, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga.

7.

Principal, Ram Krishna College, Madhubani.

8.

Jawaid Ahmad S/o Izhar Ahmad Resident of Mohalla Jaldhari Chowk, Hospital Road, Near Sanskrit High School, P.S. Madhubani Town, District Madhubani.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shivender Kishore, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv.

For Respondent no. 2 :

Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Adv.

For L.N.M.U.

:

Mrs. Binita Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 17-02-2023

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner assails the appointment of respondent no.

8. While the writ petition was pending, appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Chancellor, with the same prayer, has been rejected vide order dated 04.03.2016.

3. It is informed that the order passed by the Chancellor dated 04.03.2016 is a subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10632 of 2015(2) dt.17-02-2023 2/2 19362 of 2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the present writ petition be tagged with the said writ petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submits that the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous, after the passing of order by the Chancellor, rejecting the representation of the petitioner with regard to appointment of respondent no. 8.

6. In my considered opinion, the grievance raised in the present petition was with regard to appointment of respondent no. 8. The challenge to his appointment has already been rejected by the Appellate Authority, which is a subject matter of consideration before this Court in a separate writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

7. The same is accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous.

8. However, the dismissal will not come in the way of the petitioner to take up all the arguments which he wants to take in the other writ petition.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Pravinkumar/- Item No. 66 U