Ram Agar Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.622 of 2011 ====================================================== Ram Agar Sah , Son of Sri Yogi Sah, Resident of Mohalla- Rahamganj, Post Office-Lalbagh, District- Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The director, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. L.N. Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga through its Registrar

5. The Vide Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga

6. The Registrar, L.N.Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga

7. The Secretary, S. Wakil Ahmd Teacher's Training College ( B. Ed.), Darbhanga

8. The Principal, S. Wakil Ahmed Teacher's Training college ( B.Ed), Darbhanga . .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Udai Chand Prasad and Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : A.C to A.A.G.-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-03-2017 This writ application was filed on 11.01.2011 seeking quashing of notification issued vide Memo No. XC/1868-78/2000 dated 29.02.2000, under the signature of the Controller of Examination, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga, whereby admission of students including this petitioner to B.Ed. Course in S. Wakil Ahmed Teacher's Training College, Darbhanga has been found to be illegal and accordingly B.Ed. examination of such students, results and mark-sheets have been cancelled with retrospective effect.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University at the very outset has raised preliminary objection over maintainability of the writ application on the ground of inordinate delay of 11 years in approaching this Court for the relief sought.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to counter the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the University.

4. I do not find any explanation on record justifying delay of 11 years in approaching this Court.

5. The principle needs no reiteration that law favours those, who are vigilant and prompt in approaching for enforcement of their rights and those who indolent and lax.

6. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

ArunKumar/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) U