IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.255 of 2008 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, B.N.MANDAL UNIVERSITY & ORS. Versus UMESH KUMAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Naresh Dixit, Advocate Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Ravi, Junior Counsel to Government Pleader-XV ---------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 16th September, 2008. That the Single Judge, on the basis of a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar v. V.C., Bhupendra Nr. Mandal University, 2007 (2) PLJR 682, disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 30th July, 2007, is not in dispute. 2. A Division bench of this Court considered the matter thus: - “44. On a consideration of the material facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it appears to me that the case of Muslim Minority Ahmadia B. Ed. College, Rampura, Katihar is different from the other three Colleges in this batch of appeals. 45. It is seen above that the University was obliged to hold examination for the students of the College of the session 1999-2000. Hence, in order to cure the anomaly, the degrees granted to the students of the College for the - 2 - past sessions must also be restored. The Government order and the University notification bearing no. G.S. (A- 700)-VCO-615/2000, dated 19.5.2000 (Annexure 14 to CWJC No.7478 of 2000) are accordingly quashed only in so far as those direct for the cancellation of the degrees granted to the appellants in these appeals. This order shall have no effect on the criminal case being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2000 or on the issue of recognition/affiliation of the College by the State Government, University or the Regional Committee of National Teachers’ Education Council. 46. This judgment will also be of no help to the promoters/office bearers of the College in making a plea for the grant of recognition/affiliation of the College.” 3. As a coordinate Bench, we are bound by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Satish Kumar. The counsel for the appellants, however, submits that the aforesaid judgment has been carried to the Supreme Court by filing special leave petition and, therefore, consideration of the matter may be deferred. We are not persuaded by the submission of counsel for the appellants. Since there is a decision by the Division Bench and the Single Judge has followed that decision, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 4. L.P.A. is dismissed accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-