Pappu Kumar Yadav v. B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5962 of 2017 ====================================================== Pappu Kumar Yadav son of Dileep Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Lakhni, Post office- Tilhar Police Station- Mahishi, District- Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura through its Vice Chancellor. 2.

The Vice Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. 3.

The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate :

Mr. Pooja Das, Advocate :

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

Mr.Rajesh Singh, Advocate For University :

Ms. Vandana Kishore, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-06-2024 1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned. 2.

The petitioner has filed the present writ application for a direction upon the University to appoint him on the post of Mali in Forbesganj College, Forbesganj.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to an advertisement published for appointment of Mali and for other posts in Forbesganj College by B.N. Mandal University on 13.12.2014, petitioner had applied for the post of Mali. Thereafter, an admit card was issued for appearing in written test. The petitioner appeared in written test on 17.04.2016, declared successful and was called for interview. The petitioner participated in the interview and was waiting for call letter for his appointment but the appointment letter was not

Patna High Court CWJC No.5962 of 2017(4) dt.24-06-2024 2/2 issued.

4.

Learned counsel for B.N. Mandal University, referring to counter affidavit, submits that petitioner did not appear on the date of interview and as such, was shown absent by the Interview Board, which would be evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that Annexure-A is an unsigned document and is only attested. 6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the specific averment made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was absent on the date of interview, which is supported by Annexure-A, i.e. the attendance sheet of all the candidates having their signatures, I find that against the name of petitioner at serial no. 1, it has been written as "Absent", whereas other candidates have signed the attendance sheet dated 29.11.2016. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present writ application and thus, the same is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) rinkee/- U