IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1935 of 2002 SMT.PRATIMA RANJAN, W/O SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE-PATEPUR GOPINATH, P.O.-DIGHARA, P.S.-PUSA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. ……PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, HAVING ITS HEADQUARTER AT PUSA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, P.O.-PUSA, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, P.O.-PUSA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, P.O.-PUSA, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 5. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, RECRUITMENT, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, P.O.-PUSA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 6. THE DIRECTOR OF EXTENSION EDUCATION, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, P.O.-PUSA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. …RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Anand K. Ojha, Adv. For the R.A.U. : Mr.Chandra Mohan Prasad Singh, Adv. ----------- 5 09.04.2010 Petitioner had filed this writ application for a direction to the respondent University to publish the result of selection and interview held pursuant to an advertisement published on 25.1.2000 for the post of Office Superintendent-cum-Accountant in Krishi Vigyan Kendras set-up with financial support of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (I.C.A.R.). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection process was held and 2 petitioner had also appeared in the interview on 5.10.2001. However, since the respondent University was delaying in publication of the result, she moved this Court. While allowing time to the respondents by order dated 21.2.2002, this Court expressed that it was expected that the University would take necessary steps with regard to publication of result so that appointments are made on the post keeping in view the communication of the ICAR dated 21.2.2000, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in the case in 2002 itself and it was categorically stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 that the Vice-Chancellor had canceled the selection process in view of certain controversies arising in the process. The matter remained pending thereafter and it has been taken up now. The petitioner filed his supplementary affidavit in the case on 5.8.2009 wherein it has been stated that even subsequent to the alleged order of the Vice-Chancellor canceling the selection process, the Senior Officers of the 3 University did make a proposal for proceeding with the appointment on the basis of selection made and panel prepared. In view of this affidavit, learned counsel for the University was directed to file a reply. A reply has been filed. In reply it has been reiterated that selection process was cancelled by the Vice-Chancellor by putting a note in the margin of the report submitted before the Vice-Chancellor by the Director, Administration and the Director, Research jointly. The photocopy of the said note is annexed as Annexure-A with the said reply to the respondents. However, photocopy does not bear any note of the Vice-Chancellor in the margin, but learned counsel for the University has shown the original which bears the note of the Vice Chancellor in its margin in respect of cancellation of the selection process. It is also stated by the respondents in the said reply that subsequently two successive advertisements were published for the said appointment on the post of Superintendent-cum-Accountant in Krishi Vigyan Kendras vide advertisement no.2 of 2004 and advertisement no. 2 of 2008. 4 Thus, it appears that by conscious decision the Vice-Chancellor has cancelled the selection process initiated in 2000 and subsequently fresh advertisements have been published by the University for making appointment on the posts. In the circumstances, this Court is unable to pass any positive directions to the respondents to publish the result of the selection held pursuant to the advertisement no. 1/2000. However, in case the petitioner has applied against the subsequent advertisement no. 2 of 2004 or advertisement no. 2 of 2008, the respondents are directed to consider her case on merits and in case she has become overage during this period, the same may be condoned in view of the fact that she had moved this Court promptly as noticed in the order of this Court dated 21.2.2002, but her writ application remained pending for so long. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)