Dr. Shobha Lal Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4895 of 2025

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

Dr. Shobha Lal Son of Late Chanchal Sah Resident of Jhauganj Ghat Gali, Chowk, P.O. Patna City, P.S. Chowk Thana, District-Patna-800008.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Bihar State University Service Commission, Patna, through its Chairman 8th Floor, Bihar School Examination Board, Academic Building, Budha Marge, Patna.-800001.

¶10

The Secretary Bihar State University Service Commission, 8th Floor, Bihar School Examination Board, Academic Building, Budha Marge, Patna.800001.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Narayan Sharma For the State : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (09) For the B.S.U.S.C. : Mr. Tuhin Shankar- Advocate Mr. Gopal Kumar- Advocate ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 17-04-2025

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶16

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State University Service Commission and learned AAG-9 for the State.

¶17

The learned AAG-9, at the outset, submits that the petitioner is seeking relief on the ground that the experience certificates submitted by him was in terms of the advertisement and his candidature was wrongly rejected on the ground that experience certificate was not counter-signed by the Registrar of the University, but then, the experience certificates of the

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.4895 of 2025(2) dt.17-04-2025 2/2

¶19

petitioner is not on record. It is also submitted that experience certificates of the petitioner was a necessary document which was required to be annexed with the writ application, as such, in absence of the said document, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate the lis as raised in the instant writ application. It is further submitted that selection process, in pursuance of the advertisement, had commenced and has been completed and appointments have been made. It is also submitted that if the writ application is allowed, in that event, the last person selected in the category of the petitioner will be ousted, but then, he has not been made party respondent in the instant writ application, as such, the writ application is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party also.

¶20