Dr. Amarnath Thakur And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8451 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Dr. Amarnath Thakur, son of Shri Ram Padarath Thakur, resdient of Mohalla- Belwaganj, P.O.+P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga, Bihar.

2. Dr. Suman Kumar Jha, son of Late Chandrakant Jha, resident of Mohalla- Lakshmisagar, P.O.- Lakshmisagar, P.S.- L.N. Mithila University Campus, District- Darbhanga, Bihar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwarnagar, Darbhanga, through its Registrar.

3. Controller of Examination, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwarnagar, Darbhanga.

4. Principal, S.M. Jaheer Alam Teacher's Training College, Bahera, Darbhanga.

5. Secretary, S.M. Jaheer Alam Teacher's Training College, Bahera, Darbhanga.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar For the Respondent/s : Ms. Jahan Ara, AC to GP-14 For University : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-04-2017 The petitioners have sought for a direction to the Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwarnagar, Darbhanga, for publication of result of Master of Education Course for the Sessions 1997-98, which was held in the year 1999.

2. The petitioners claim to have studied and pursued their Master of Education Course in S.M. Jaheer Alam Teacher's Training College, Bahera, Darbhanga.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University stating therein that the said College was not

accorded recognition by National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE) for M.Ed. Course. The petitioners were somehow or the other allowed to appear at the M.Ed. examination but subsequently it was detected that the said College conducting M.Ed. Course was not granted due recognition. It has also been stated that the NCTE had communicated to the University that the said College never accorded recognition by the NCTE for conducting M.Ed. Course.

4. The averments made in the counter affidavit have not been disputed. Since the College where the petitioners are said to have studied did not have recognition by the NCTE, the relief as sought for, cannot be granted. There is another reason why this application should not be maintained. As is evident, the petitioners claim to have appeared at M.Ed. examination in the year 1999. Sixteen years thereafter, he has filed this application, seeking direction for publication of results.

5. On the ground of delay and latches also, this application deserves to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/- U