IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ------ Letters Patent Appeal No.826 of 2010 ------ Appeal against the judgment and order dated 26-3-2010 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7418 of 2005 ------ Babulal Ram, Son of Khaderan Ram, R/o Charitrawan, M.V. College Gate, Ward No.9, P.S. and District- Buxar........................................................Appellant Versus 1.The Chancellor,Magadh University and Veer Kunwar Singh University, Raj Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya, through its Registrar. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 4. The Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah , District- Bhojpur, through its Registgrar. 5. The Vice Chancellor,Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah, District- Bhojpur. 6. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Principal, Maharishi Vishwamitra Mahavidyalaya, Buxar, P.S. and District- Buxar 8. The State of Bihar................................Respondents ---------------------------------- 3 22-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for Veer Kunwar Singh University, learned counsel for Magadh University and learned counsel for respondent no.7, the Principal, Maharshi Vishwamitra Mahavidyalaya Buxar. As per earlier order passed in this appeal respondent no.7 has taken a stand that there is no document in the college to show that the appellant/writ petitioner was 2 ever appointed or ever worked as a Class-IV employee. This is the stand on behalf of the Principal even before the writ court where a counter-affidavit was filed on his behalf. The long and checquered history of litigation has been noticed by the writ court in detail and requires no repetition. The connected writ petition of 2005 was filed by the appellant for quashing an order dated 2-6-1984 issued by the Magadh University pursuant to decision of the Syndicate whereby appointment of the petitioner/appellant and others in M.V. College, Buxar was declared to be invalid and void ab initio on the basis of a report of a Sub- Committee which found that the appointments were not on sanctioned post and without prior approval of State Government. Some subsequent decisions such as that of the Government dated 14-5-1999 were also challenged by the writ petitioner. The stand of the respondent was that in fact the writ petitioner was never appointed in the college in question and some other similar appointments were found to be beyond the sanctioned posts as well as beyond the posts which could be subsequently sanctioned on account of staffing pattern. 3 The writ court has noticed serious dispute of facts and there is no reliable material to show that the petitioner was ever appointed by the Governing Body of the college within the sanctioned strength and was working on such posts. The writ court has also noticed the delay and laches because the main order of the University dated 2-6-1984 was challenged after more than ten years. In the facts of the case, we do not find any error committed by the writ court so as to warrant interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey,J)