Patna High CourtCWJC/2228/2014dismissed

Birendra Kumar Singh v. The Veer Kunwar Singh University And ORS

2015-09-10Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2228 of 2014 =========================================================== Birendra Kumar Singh, son of Late Jagdish Prasad Singh, Resident of VillageDharam Pipra, P.O.- Kakila, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur, At Present Incharge Principal, Sant Sri Barhana Mahila College, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Veer Kunwar Singh University Arrah, Bhojpur through its Registrar

2. The Vice Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh Univesity, Arrah, Bhojpur

3. The University Representative-cum Inspector of College, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah, Bhojpur

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur cum In-Charge Secretary of Ad-Hoc Committee, Sant Sri Barhana Mahilla College, Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur.

5. Sri Dineshwar Prasad Singh, Sant Sri Barhana Mahila College, Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madanjeet Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Aslok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Anant Kumar Pandey, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Writ application is dismissed.

Annexure-12 does not require any interference because the direction of the Secretary is unambiguous that it will be the Incharge Principal, who must be handed over all the documents indicated therein. Petitioner is only a member of the so-called Ad hoc Committee and if the petitioner is claiming a right by virtue of some arrangement earlier, which was not a substantive arrangement, then he has to make way for the In-charge Principal, who is at command.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2228 of 2014 dt.10-09-2015 2/2 Writ application is dismissed because there cannot be two centres of power especially when the existence of the petitioner itself is under a cloud as is the stand of the private respondent no. 5. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Vats/- U