IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10841 of 2006 SHEO VINAY RAI, S/O LATE RAMJEE RAI, R/O MOHALLA-KASHI BAZAR (WEST OF BHAGWAN BAZAR THEN CHAUKEY NO. 2/4) P.S.-BHAGWAN BAZAR, DISTRICT-SARAN AT CHAPRA. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (SECONDARY EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY, CHAPRA. 3. THE REGISTRAR, JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY, CHAPRA. …………RESPONDENT 1ST SET. 4. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA, S/O RAJENDNRA SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE-NARANPUR, P.O.-BHATTHA SANAHO, DISTRICT-SARAN AT CHAPRA. 5. NEZAR AHMAD, S/O SAFI AHMAD, R/O VILLAGE- KABILARPUR, V.S. MILLS, HARKHUWA, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. …………… RESPONDENT 2ND SET. ----------- 2 07.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of Specimen Collector by canceling the appointment of respondent nos. 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already filed a representation before the concerned respondents, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-5 and its reminder annexed as Annexure-6. This writ application was filed on - 2 - 4.9.2006. However, in spite of passage of more than three years, nothing has come on the records of this case, by way of counter affidavit or otherwise, to show that the claims of the petitioner have been considered and/or denied by the competent authority or have been even considered. Learned counsel for the respondents is also not in a position to contend that the claims of the petitioner are in active consideration of have been considered and disposed of by the competent authority by now, in any manner. In the circumstances, in view of delay caused in the case, this Court has no option but to dispose of this writ application with the following directions:- Petitioner must file a fresh copy of representation (annexed as Annexure -5 with the writ application) or a fresh representation before concerned respondent, within one month from today along with a copy of this order. If such a representation or a fresh copy of the representation is filed within one month before the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University he shall consider the same and pass final orders within two months thereafter. If the petitioner’s - 3 - claim is found genuine and correct, he shall also pass consequential orders for his appointment as claimed by him. However, in case, he does not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner, he shall pass reasoned order in specific terms assigning specific reasons for rejecting the same and communicate the same to the petitioner within the same time. The respondent Vice-Chancellor shall hear all the parties concerned and likely to be affected by the claim of petitioner before passing any final orders and shall examine all documents and records as may be referred by the parties. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. It goes without saying that this Court has not gone into the claim of the petitioner on merits which shall be considered and decided by the respondent Vice-Chancellor within the time fixed as above and strictly in accordance with law. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)