IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10956 of 2002 PRASHANT KUMAR SUMAN son of Late Nageshwar Prasad Sinha, resident of West Krishnapuri, P.O. and P.S. and District Samastipur. Versus 1.THE V.C.,L.N.M.UNIVERSITY Darbhanga. 2.The Registrar, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Darbhanga. 3.The Prinipal, Samastipur College, Samastipur. 4.The Principal B.R.B. College, Samastipur. 5.The Principal, B.D. College, Jainagar, madhubani. 6.The State of Bihar. ----------- 3 25/6/2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State and Counsel for the University are present. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “That the present writ application is being filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to comply with official letter dated 8.1.2002 issued vide memo no. 218-23/02, passed by the Registrar L.N Mithila University by order of the Vice Chancellor whereby the petitioner has been reinstated at Samastipur College, Samastipur from B.R.B. College, Samastipur ( Where his head quarter was fixed for the period of suspension) in the light of order dated 19.9.2001 passed under C.W.J.C. No.2005 of 2001 and consequently to the payment of salaries with interest which is due since 10.11.2000 (including the rest of 50% salary amount for suspension period within a definite time frame).” From the connected document, Annexure-6, representation of the petitioner dated 6.4.2002 addressed to the Registrar of the University it would appear that the limited grievance of the petitioner was with regard to acceptance of his joining pursuant to vacation of order of suspension. It further transpires that the earlier order of transfer of the petitioner from 2 Samastipur College to D.B. College, Jainagar Madhubani was subject matter of C.W.J.C. NO.2005 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, order of transfer was set aside., In absence of the counter affidavit on behalf of the University, this Court has kept completely in dark as to why petitioner’s joining was not accepted, but then absence of counsel for the petitioner could also mean that grievance of the petitioner may have been redressed. Therefore, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of claim of the petitioner would only give him liberty to approach the competent authority of the University for ventilation of his grievance, if the same has not been redressed by now. In the event, such a representation is filed by the petitioner the competent authority of the University will be under obligation to pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)