Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra And ORS v. The State Of Bihar Through Dr. Rajendra Singh Gangwar Principal Secretary Education Epartment Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.905 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10128 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra son of Sri Nagendra Mishra presently posted and working as Assistant Professor, Z.A. Islamia College, Siwan, P.S. + District - Siwan.

2. Dr. Zafrullah son of Shri Kamaluddin Ahmad presently posted and working as Assistant Professor, Z.A. Islamia College, Siwan, P.S. + District - Siwan.

3. Dr. Md. Junaid Alam son of Late Md. Shoaib presently posted and working as Assistant Professor, Z.A. Islamia College, Siwan, P.S. + District - Siwan.

4. Dr. Mazhar Ahmad Ghani son of Late M.N. Ahmad Ghani presently posted and working as Assistant Professor, Z.A. Islamia College, Siwan, P.S. + District - Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Dr. Rajendra Singh Gangwar Principal Secretary Education Department Bihar, Patna.

2. Prof. Lokesh Chandra Prasad, Vice Chancellor, J.P. University, Chapra.

3. Dr. Achyutanand Singh, Registrar, J.P. University, Chapra. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Adv. For the J.P. University : Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 13-09-2018 Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel representing the petitioners in this case informs this Court that no doubt in terms of the order of the learned Writ Court the University had examined the matter relating to these petitioners and had come out with a decision, but the said decision is subject matter of challenge in CWJC No.331 of 2018 which is pending consideration. Since this Court has been informed that the

Patna High Court MJC No.905 of 2016 (3) dt.13-09-2018 University has taken a decision, without going into the merits of the same, this Court can easily come to a conclusion that the operative part of the order passed by the learned Writ Court on 27.07.2015 stands complied with.

This contempt application cannot proceed in the given facts and circumstances. The same is dismissed. The apprehension shown by Mr. Srivastava that, in case writ application is allowed the petitioners will not able to get their fruit, seems to be misplaced for the time being as in such case the petitioners will have definitely remedies available in accordance with law.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- U