Patna High Court

Patna High Court: In a writ petition filed for the quashing of the illegal appointments of Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice Chancellors and other officers of the Universities of State of Bihar, the division bench of Sanjay Karol, CJ. and S. Kumar, J. has without expressing any opinion on merits disposed of the petition on certain terms, and directed the Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, to consider and decide petitioner’s grievances.

The Court noted that the present petition has been filed for quashing the illegal appointments of Vice-Chancellors, and other officers of the Universities of State of Bihar as it was violating Section 10 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Further, for directing the authorities to investigate the financial illegalities committed by the universities and also, for commanding the respondent to institute an enquiry by the Special Vigilance Unit to find the quantum of funds manipulated by the higher officials.

The Court took note of the ruling in D.N. Jeevaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 2 SCC 653 wherein the Court observed that procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in public interest litigation. Further, courts are more liberal in entertaining public interest litigation for issues pertaining to good governance, however, litigation essentially directed against one organisation or individual ought not to be entertained or should be rarely entertained as other remedies are also available to public spirited litigants and they should be encouraged to avail of such remedies. Thus, the Court disposed of the petition on the following terms:

  • Petitioner must approach the authority within a period of four weeks from today by filing a representation for redressal of the grievance.
  • The authority must consider and dispose of it expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months from the date of its filing and communicate the order assigning reasons to the petitioner.
  • Follow principles of natural justice and provide due opportunity of hearing and opportunity to place on record all relevant materials/documents to the parties.

Moreover, the Court provided liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum/Court, subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action.

[Rohit Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 SCC OnLine Pat 2411, decided on 1.09.2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Manini Jaiswal, Advocate, for the Petitioner;

Pawan Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court


One comment

  • I want to participate in Debate competition. I’m the student of Patna university UG.

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.