← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/19149/2019disposed

Tejasvi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2019-09-17Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19149 of 2019 ====================================================== Tejasvi Kumar, S/o Ashok Kumar, Resident of Village Katesar, P.O.- Anandpur, P.S.- Rampur Chauram, District- Arwal. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Vice Chairman, State Board of Technical Education Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Director, Directorate, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Controller of Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, Patna.

6.

The Controller of Examination, State Board of Technical Education Bihar, Patna.

7.

The Principal, Gaya College Engineering, Gaya. 8.

The Principal, Govt. Engineering College, Arwal. 9.

The Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ashish Kumar Lal, AC to GA-5 For the BCECE : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 17-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that counselling is still going on, whereas Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of BCECE submits that counselling is over and even the admission is closed. If the counselling is over and the admission is closed,

Patna High Court CWJC No.19149 of 2019(2) dt.17-09-2019 2/2 then there is no question for consideration of the case of the petitioner. However, if the counselling is still going on, then the respondents may consider the case of the petitioner in view of the fact that result of the petitioner has already been published. With the aforesaid, the writ application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uday/- U