Prasun Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3407 of 2011 ====================================================== Prasun Kumar Singh, son of Late Keshav Prasad Singh, resident of villageRamnagar, P.S. Maner, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

4. The Vice- Chancellor, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur

5. The Registrar, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur

6. The Director, Administration, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur

7. The Principal, Bihar Veterinary College, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indeshwari Prasad Mandal, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to SC-6 Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhaya, Adv.

Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-03-2016 After some argument, Sri Indeshwari Prasad Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner, in presence of learned AC to SC-6 as well as Sri Anil Kumar Upadhaya, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Chandra Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent nos.4 to 7/ Rajendra Agriculture University( presently known as Bihar Agriculture University), makes a prayer for disposal of the present writ petition, so that the petitioner may represent before the Respondent no.5/Registrar, Rajendra Agriculture University regarding his claim as to whether the petitioner is still functioning as Junior Research Assistant, as was indicated in the counter affidavit filed in the month of

Patna High Court CWJC No.3407 of 2011 (8) dt.08-03-2016 2/2 November,2011 on behalf of Respondent nos. 3 to 7 or he is continuing as Non-technical Supervisor, whereas learned counsel for the University by way of referring to Annexure-6 to the writ petition submits that the adjustment of the petitioner after closure of Blood Protista Scheme was made against the post of Nontechnical Supervisor. Since confusion has arisen due to filing of the counter affidavit, the Court is of the Opinion that such dispute cannot be adjudicated. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation with supportive documents before the Respondent no.5 within eight weeks from today. If such representation is filed, the Court expects that the Respondent no.5/ Registrar of the University may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U