Dr. Santosh Kumar v. The Bihar State University Service Commission

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13228 of 2024 ====================================================== 1.

Dr. Santosh Kumar Son of Sri Bidya Nath Prasad Sinha Resident of Kl 188 Shaharpura, P.O. Sindri P.S Sindri, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828122. 2.

Dr. Rawesh Kumar Son of Late Baleshwar Singh Resident of Taldanga Housing Colony, Q/No.-34/2-3, Nirsha, P.O.-Chirkunda, P.S.-Chirkunda, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828202.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Bihar State University Service Commission through its Chairman, 8th Floor, Bihar School Examination Board Academic Building, Buddha Marg, Patna-800881.

2.

The Chairman, Bihar State University Service Commission, 8th Floor, Bihar School Examination Board Academic Building, Buddha Marg, Patna800881. 3.

The Secretary, Bihar State University Service Commission, 8th Floor, Bihar School Examination Board Academic Building, Buddha Marg, Patna800881. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumar Kaushik, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Harsh Singh, Adv (B.S.U.S.C.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-09-2024 Heard learned counsels for both the sides.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is apprehending that his experience certificate shall be rejected by the Bihar State University Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") on the ground that it has not been counter signed by the Registrar of the concerned University. The experience certificate is issued by the Registrar of the concerned University himself.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13228 of 2024(2) dt.03-09-2024 2/2 3.

Learned counsel for the Commission submits that scrutiny of the application for appointment as Assistant Professor is going on and the writ application has been filed on mere apprehension, which is speculative in nature. 4.

In view of the fact that the present writ application has been filed on mere apprehension and the application of the petitioner has not been rejected after scrutiny, no cause of action has arisen for filing the writ application.

5.

In the result, this writ application is dismissed as premature, with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, if in future, the grievance of the petitioner subsists. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U