IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12426 of 2010 1. GOPAL KUMAR MUKHERJEE S/O LATE JITENDRA NATH MUKHERJEE R/O VILL.- DAHIYAWAN, P.O. & P.S.- CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN (CHAPRA) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR (J.P. UNIVERSITY, CHAPRA), RAJ BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY (JUDICIAL), GOVERNOR'S SECRETARIAT, RAJ BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 6. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE REGISTRAR, B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 8. THE J.P.UNIVERSITY, CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 9. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, J.P.UNIVERSITY, CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN 10. THE REGISTRAR, J.P.UNIVERSITY, CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN 11. THE PRINCIPAL, RAM JAIPAL COLLEGE, CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN 12. SRI RAM PRASAD YADAV S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, RAM JAIPAL COLLEGE, CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN ----------- 2. 30.03.2011 It is long story with a chain of history of litigation. It is not first attempt by the petitioner to approach the High Court for similar relief. First battle initiated in the year 1994 before a learned Single Judge which failed to begat any indulgence or relief. So was the fate of the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. When the matter traveled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of Division Bench, it came to be dismissed by a cryptic order, saying “special leave petition is dismissed”. 2 The matter did not end at that because petitioner is quite insistent in pursuing his claim, despite the judicial pronouncements earlier on the issue. He filed yet another writ application in the year 2004, which was disposed of on 18.4.2008 with a liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the writ to move the Hon’ble Chancellor. The order of rejection of the representation of the petitioner by the chancellor is Annexure-1 which is under challenge in the present writ application. All the earlier orders are on record as various Annexures and reading of the whole can lead to only one conclusion and that conclusion is that the Hon,ble Chancellor has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner since Chancellor had no option in the background noted above. In the opinion of this court, repeated writ application are not the answer for the problems of the petitioner. It is ill advised move. In the above noted circumstances, this writ application is dismissed. Devendra/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)