IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9171 of 2011 Kameshwar Prasad Singh, son of late Devi Prasad Singh, resident of Flat No.202, Indu Nilay Apartment, Opposite Charminar Apartment, Road No. 11C, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadamkuan, District- Patna…………… Petitioner Versus 1. The Chancellor Of The Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Patna University through the Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna. 4. The Registrar, Patna University, Patna. 5. Dr.Sudipta Adhikari, son of not known to the petitioner, at present Dean, Faculty of Social Science, Patna University, Patna. ………………… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Sharad Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the University:Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate ---------- 3. 16.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Patna University. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the memo No.973 dated 28.4.2011 issued by the Patna University, by which the private respondent No.5 has been re- appointed as Dean of Faculty of Social Science, Patna University. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Patna University Act as also the statutes, the Dean has to be appointed from amongst the senior most University Professors in order of seniority but the same has not been done by the 2 impugned order dated 28.4.2011 and the procedure laid down in the statute for such appointment has not been followed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Patna University, it is stated that the respondent No.5 was appointed as Dean of Faculty of Social Science by notification dated 10.10.2009 for a period of two years with effect from 1.11.2009. In the absence of the Vice Chancellor, the respondent No.5 was acting as Vice Chancellor of the University and keeping in view the convocation which was to be held on 28.3.2011, the charge of the post of Dean of Faculty was temporarily given to the Dean of Humanities by the University notification dated 23.3.2011. After the convocation, the said notification was superseded by the impugned order dated 28.4.2011 allowing the respondent No.5 to continue on the post of Dean, Faculty of Social Science for the remaining period as per the earlier notification dated 10.10.2009. In view of the aforesaid stand taken in the counter affidavit, on behalf of the University, it appears that the petitioner does not have any cause of action to challenge the impugned notification dated 28.4.2011, as he had not challenged the earlier notification dated 10.10.2009 issued by the University appointing respondent No.5 as Dean, Faculty of Social Science. 3 The notification dated 28.4.2011 is merely to end a temporary arrangement for a period of one month in view of the convocation. The respondent No.5 having been appointed with effect from 1.11.2009 for a period of two years by notification dated 10.10.2009 and the said notification having not been challenged at the relevant time, he would be entitled to continue for the full period of two years and a mere chance of the notification dated 23.3.2011 having been issued for a particular purpose necessitating the issuance of the impugned order dated 28.4.2011 to restore the status-quo ante it cannot be said that any cause of action has arisen in favour of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the action of the respondent authorities of the University. The writ application is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )