Allowed

Udit Narayan Roy v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC6 Oct 2017L.P.A/742/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This letters patent appeal addressed whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction when an alternative civil court remedy existed. The Court distinguished precedent permitting such jurisdiction because the University issued an advertisement under statutory direction, ordering the University to consider the claim and communicate decisions within two months.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to approach the Registrar of the University regarding the action to be taken on the advertisement; University to communicate decision within two months.

Udit Narayan Roy Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.742 of 2015 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3435 of 2015

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Udit Narayan Roy, Son Of Late Surya Narayan Roy, Resident Of Village & P.O.- Dhamoura Via Baburahi, P.S.-BABURAHI, District- Madhubani At Present Posted As Lecturer In The Sant Kabir College, Samastipur

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar represented through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶8

The District Magistrate, Samastipur

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastipur

¶10

Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga represented through its Registrar

¶11

The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga

¶12

The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga

¶13

The Governing Body of Sant Kabir College, Samastipur represented through its Secretary

¶14

The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Sant Kabir College, Samastipur

¶15

Shri K.K. Singh, Son of at present not known to this Petitioner, however, presently the University Representative to the Governing Body of the Sant Kabir College, Samastipur

¶16

Shri Braham Dev Yadav Son of Shri Shashi Bhushan Yadav, resident of Village & P.O.- Parora via Gadhpura, District- Begusarai.

¶17

... ... Respondent/s

¶18

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Avinath Kumar For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the University : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶19

Date : 06-10-2017

¶20

The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that the appellant’s writ petition has been dismissed on account of availability of alternative remedy of approaching the Civil Court.

¶21

Patna High Court LPA No.742 of 2015 dt.06-10-2017 2/3

¶22

It is argued by learned counsel that in LPA No. 957 of 2012 decided on 27.7.2012 the question was as to whether a mandamus can be issued to the Managing Committee of a private Institute and the Division Bench held that it cannot be done. However, in this case the grievance of the appellant is that in pursuance to a direction issued by this Court in CWJC No. 22901 of 2012 on 28.01.2013 vide Annexure-7, Lalit Narayan Mithila University issued an advertisement on 28^th July, 2013 but nothing was done in furtherance to the advertisement and therefore, direction was issued to the Registrar of the University to take action in furtherance to the advertisement. Accordingly, it is stated that the order passed in LPA No. 957 of 2012 will not be applicable in this case.

¶23

We are of the considered view that the aforesaid contention of the appellant is correct. In this case a direction was issued to the University in question in terms of the Act and the Statutes and therefore, it was not necessary to relegate the appellant to take recourse to alternative remedy to appropriate Civil Court and to that extent the learned Writ Court has committed error.

¶24

However, as the University is not proceeding to take action in furtherance to the advertisement published on 28^th July, 2013 vide Advertisement No. 3/13, Annexure-10 in the writ petition, we

¶25

Patna High Court LPA No.742 of 2015 dt.06-10-2017

¶26

3/3

¶27

dispose of the matter with a direction to the Registrar of the University in question to look into the grievance of the appellant with regard to the action to be taken on the advertisement and decide his claim in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time.

¶28

Needless to emphasize that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the matter. It is for the University to pass appropriate order on the claim of the appellant. Action to be taken and communicated to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶29

With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of.

¶30

(Rajendra Menon, CJ)

¶31

( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

¶32

spandey/-

¶33

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	10-10-2017
Transmission Date

Udit Narayan Roy v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udit Narayan Roy v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mahesh Sharma and Anr. Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Shashi Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Yogendra Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pashupati Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Most Janki Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.