Patna High CourtL.P.A/1300/2016disposed

Dr. Buddhi Nath Das v. Lalit Naryan Mithila University And ORS

2016-12-14Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava,Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1300 of 2016 Arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 2250 of 2016 =========================================================== Dr. Buddhi Nath Das, S/o Late Maleshwar Das, Resident of Kilaghat, Bazidpur, P.S.- Darbhanga Town, District- Darbhanga.

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. Lalit Narayan Mithila University through its Registrar, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.

2. The Vice- Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga.

3. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga.

4. Dr. Pushpam Narayan, Associate Professor, University Department of Music, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga.

5. Dr. Kumari L.K. Singh Kavya, Associate Professor, University Department of Music, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 14-12-2016 The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 10th of May, 2016 in C.W.J.C. No. 2250 of 2016 whereby, a direction was issued to the Vice Chancellor of the University to take a decision on the claim of the appellant for promotion as a Reader on merit or under Career Advancement Scheme within a period of six months.

2. Learned counsel for the University has filed an affidavit pointing out that the claim of the appellant for promotion has

Patna High Court LPA No.1300 of 2016 dt.14-12-2016 2/2 been considered and rejected by the Vice Chancellor on 8th of December, 2016.

3. Since the claim of the appellant for promotion has been rejected, the appellant has an independent fresh cause of action to dispute the order passed, in accordance with law, in appropriate proceedings.

4. The Letters Patent Appeal is, thus, dismissed as infructuous.

(Hemant Gupta, ACJ) (Arvind Srivastava, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 16.12.2016 Transmission Date