IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 14467 of 2010 ========================================== Prasiddh Narayan Singh s/o late Lakhindra Singh, r/o village – Dharmdaspur, P.S. Desari, District – Vaishali, and President of Birchandra Patel Smarak College Bachao Sanghars Samitti, Desari ………………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar Govt. , Patna 3. The Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar Govt. , Patna 4. The Chancellor, Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 5. The Vice Chancellor, Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 6. The Registrar, Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 7. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali 8. The Principal In charge, Birchand Patel Smarak College, Desari, District Vaishali 9. Dr. Satish Chandra Patel, the University Representative cum Secretary of Birchand Patel Smarak College, Desari, Vaishali 10. The Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Branch Desari, Vaishali ……………….. Respondents =================================================== APPEARANCE For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kaushal Kr. Jha, SC XVIII Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate ================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 3/9/2010 The petitioner, Secretary of Birchand Patel Smarak College Bachao Abhiyan Samittee, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution essentially against the respondent no.9 – Secretary of Birchand Patel Smarak College, Desari, District – Vaishali. 2 It is the claim of the petitioner that the respondent no.9 is not qualified to hold the post of Secretary and this court should issue mandamus against the appointment of respondent no.9. At first, it must be noted that the aforesaid Birchand Patel Samarak College Bachao Abhiyan Samitti, admittedly, has no legal status. It is not demonstrated before us that the petitioner is appointed as Secretary of such Samitti. If at all the respondent no.9 is not qualified to hold the post, the petitioner has not asked for a writ of quo-warranto. If anybody is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent no.9, such individual can approach a court of law or an appropriate forum. The appointment of the respondent no.9 can hardly be the subject matter of public interest litigation. The petition is thoroughly misconceived. Hence, it is summarily rejected. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) ( Jyoti Saran, J.)