IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15802 of 2008 1. DR.Neeta Jha wife of A. K. Jha, Resident of Khaja Sarai Laheriasarai, P.S. Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga. 2. Dr. Surendra Mohan Jha Son of Late Balbodh Jha, Resident of Laxmisagar, P.S. Lalit Narain Mithila University, District Darbhanga. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4. Lalit Narayan Mithila University through the Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila university, Darbhanga. 5. The Chancellor of Universities, Raj Bhawan, Patna. 6. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. 7. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Maduresh Prasad For the Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. S. K. Ghosh, AAG II For the Respondent no. 4,6 & 7: Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi. For the Respondent no. 5 : Mr. Shivendra Kishore. ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 23rd October, 2008. - 2 - This writ petition does not deserve to be entertained as no adverse order pursuant to the provisions contained in sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2008 (of which constitutionality has been challenged) is operative against the petitioners, as of now. It is trite principle of law that constitutionality of an Act may not be examined by the Court, if not necessary. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not put in issue the legality and correctness of the notification dated 20th August, 2008 since its operation has been stayed in so far as the petitioners are concerned. In that event the validity of the Act, namely, Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2008 does not deserve to be examined in the present writ petition as it is a matter of academic interest only. It will be open to the petitioners to approach this Court again if the office order dated 21st August, 2008 is withdrawn and the notification dated 20th August, 2008 is made operative against the petitioners or fresh order is passed prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners. 2. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-