Md. Aabib Iqubal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11438 of 2023 ====================================================== Md. Aabib Iqubal Son of Md. Farooque Azam Resident of Village-Ward No. 31, Saharsa Basti, P.S. Saharsa, Distirct-Saharsa ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Bhupendra Narayan Mandal (B.N. Mandal) University, through the Vice Chancellor, Madhepura, Bihar.

3.

The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, Bihar. 4.

The Examination Controller, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, Bihar. 5.

The Principal, R.M. College, Saharsa.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Amit Bhushan, AC to GP-17 For the University :

Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the University as also learned counsel for the State.

2. It appears that the petitioner had applied for admission in B.Ed. Course for which examination was conducted. A merit list was published on 16.06.2023 on the college notice board in which the petitioner was placed at serial no. 1 in unreserved category. He had obtained 65% marks.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that when he went to take admission, he was informed that the said merit list had been changed and in place thereof another merit list was published. Copy of the second merit list has been enclosed as

Patna High Court CWJC No.11438 of 2023(2) dt.18-08-2023 2/2 Annexure '5' to the writ application.

4. Learned counsel submits that in the second merit list, one Sonu Kumar was placed in the unreserved category.

5. Learned counsel for the University submits that in fact first merit list wrongly contained the name of the petitioner at serial no. 1 in the unreserved category and when it was found that one Sonu Kumar, who was applicant no. 135, had obtained 77 marks as against 65 marks obtained by this petitioner, the merit list was corrected and the examinee who had secured more marks than the petitioner was placed at serial no. 1.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, at this stage, submitted that for the aforesaid change in the merit list, the petitioner has faced harassment.

7. Having regard to the kind of submissions, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present writ application as the college has simply corrected the merit list to bring a more meritorious student at serial no. 1 in place of the petitioner.

8. This writ application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U