IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.114 of 2011 Hare Ram Pandey son of late Indradeo Pandey, clerk, Kamala Rai College, Gopalganj, P.S. Gopalganj, District Gopalganj . .....Appellant Versus 1. Jai Prakash University, Dak Bunglow Road, Chapra through its Vice Chancellor 2. The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Dak Bunglow Road, Chapra 3. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Son of late Ashwini Pandey, resident of Mohalla Rajendra Nagar, P.O & P.S.- Gopalganj, District Gopalganj ...Respondents ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Sr. Advocate For the University: Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Advocate For respondent No.3: Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate ------------ 5 29-04-2011 Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent University and its officials and learned counsel for the private respondent. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that appellant has genuine grievance against the private respondent whose writ petition has been allowed only on technicalities. It has further been submitted that recommendations of the concerned committee of Legislative Council were only to draw attention of the University authorities towards illegalities in the appointment/promotion of the private respondent in context of dispute relating to seniority. On going through the order of the writ court, we find that interference has been made with the orders of the University on a finding that the orders appeared to 2 be a consequence of directions given by the concerned committee of the Legislative Council and not as a result of independent deliberation and decision by the competent authority of the University. It is well settled in law that statutory authorities such as those of a University are bound to act within the four walls of the relevant statute. Hence, the order of learned Single Judge, in our view, does not require interference, more so, when the matter has been left open for decision by the University on merits and it has been clarified by the learned writ court that he has not gone into merits of the claim of the rival parties for promotion. Learned Senior counsel has some reservation against use of words “State functionaries” to describe the Legislative Council or its committee. According to him the words “State organ” would have been more appropriate. There may be some substance in the aforesaid submission. However, in the end result we find no good ground to interfere with order of the writ court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed but it is again made 3 clear that the writ court has interfered only on technical grounds and it will be for the University to apply its mind deeply to all the relevant facts and take appropriate decision on merits. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)