Faudi Yadav And ORS v. Rajendra Agriculture University And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2266 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13740 of 2010 ======================================================
1. Faudi Yadav Son of LateBaishakhi Yadav
2. Suresh Paswan Son of Sahdeo Paswan
3. Gamhri Yadav Son of Late Gajadhar Yadav All Resident of Village - Meharpur, P.S.- Banka, District - Banka .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Mr. M.L. Agrawal, Son of not known to the petitioner Registrar, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mittal Son of not known to the petitioner Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur
3. Dr. Bipin Bihari Mishra Son of not known to the petitioner Principal Bihar Agriculture College, Sabour, Bhagalpur (Bihar)
4. Dr. Sharda Sinha Son of not known to the petitioner Training Organizer, Krishi Vigyan Kendra Banka
5. The State of Bihar through Anjani kumar Singh Son of not known to the petitioner Chief Secretary, State of Bihar
6. Dr. Chhote Lal Maurya, Registrar, Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, Bhagalpur .... .... Contemnors- Opp.Parties.
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh For the Bihar Agriculture University : Mr. A.K. Upadhayay, Advocate. Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh For the Opp.Party No.5 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, AC to GA-5.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 21-12-2016 Heard the counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Upadhayay for the opposite party nos. 3, 4 and 6 as well as the counsel for the State appearing for the opposite party no.5.
A supplementary show cause is filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 3 to 6. The petitioner has filed rejoinder thereto.
Patna High Court MJC No.2266 of 2015 (9) dt.21-12-2016 2/3 The application alleges wilful/deliberate disregard/disobedience of the order dated 23.12.2014, passed in CWJC No. 13740 of 2010 at the hands of the authority of the University. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- "Let the respondent no.6 complete the exercise of selection/appointment initiated pursuant to the advertisement no. 1/2012 published on 31st of March, 2012 as quickly as possible preferably within 04 months from today. The case of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 shall also be considered, if it is found, on verification/examination, that they were also the applicant(s) pursuant to the said advertisement."
Mr. Upadhayay, learned counsel, referring to the statements made in the supplementary show-cause submits that pursuant to the said order the selection process of the advertisement in-question was taken up in which the petitioners were also issued interview letter(s) and thereafter the selection committee completed the interview and prepared a select list which has been published by the Director, Administration on 19.09.2016. The name of the successful candidates who were selected, have been stated in the succeeding paragraphs of the show-cause which is supported by Annexures 1 and 2 which are the details of the post, the date of interview and the select list issued under the signature of the Director, Administration. On the
Patna High Court MJC No.2266 of 2015 (9) dt.21-12-2016 3/3 basis of the aforesaid, the opposite parties have stated that the order passed on the writ petition has now been complied with by them.
Counsel for the petitioners raised diverse issues to contradict the said stand taken by the opposite parties. However, it has not been denied that the petitioners, upon receipt of the interview letters, did appear for interview in the said selection process. The legality of the selection process which has been urged vehemently by the petitioners cannot be gone into in this proceeding. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the correctness of selection process taken up and concluded by the opposite parties they may seek legal remedy in accordance with law. Having considered the statements made in the showcause and after hearing the parties, in my view, the present application does not need further persuasion. The contempt proceeding is dropped.
The application is disposed of.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U