IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.834 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 13092/2005) Baidyanath Singh Son of late Ram Sewak Singh, presently working as Head of the Department of Hindi, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, Aurangabad . ....Appellant Versus 1. The Chancellor ,Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhavan, Patna 2. The Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya through its Registrar 3. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya 4. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya 5. Dr. Baban Singh, Son of late Shiv Muni Singh, (working as Principal, J.L.N. college, Khagaul, District Patna at the relevant time), presently posted as Principal, T.P.S. College, Patna .....Respondents ---------------------------------- 4 26-08-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the writ court. There was a competition or contest for the post of Principal in which the private respondent was ultimately appointed in the year 1994. The said appointment was questioned by the appellant on the ground that one of the requirements for the post of Principal, at the relevant time, was 12 years teaching experience in a recognized college and allegedly the said qualification relating to experience was not fulfilled by the private respondent. The University authorities made enquiry and took a view in favour of the appellant but ultimately the matter was reviewed by 2 the Chancellor of the Universities on 27-8-2004. The Chancellor on the basis of two judgements of the Supreme Court reported in (2001) 3 SCC 328 and (1979) 1 SCC 168 as well as another judgement of the High Court reported in 2004 (3) PLJR 674 held that since only one of the qualifications relating to experience was lacking at the time of appointment to the post of Principal and since such experience has already been gained by the private respondent on account of his appointment and working since 1994, the Chancellor held that the appointment stood regularized. The writ court has noted the relevant facts as well as case laws cited by the parties and has come to the same opinion. The writ petition was filed in the year 2005 but it could be disposed of on 18-3-2011 and by that time admittedly the writ petitioner/ appellant is no longer in race as he has crossed the age of superannuation. Considering the aforesaid fact and the fact that private respondent is holding the post of 3 Principal since 1994 and it would be inequitable to turn the clock back now by considering to demote to the post of teacher, we are not impressed by the submission advanced on behalf of appellant that if the appointment is against the law, a writ of quo warranto can be sought by any person such as the appellant although he himself is no longer eligible for the post. It is further evident from the records that the writ petition was filed on a different footing seeking relief for the petitioner himself and the relief sought was not in the nature of quo warranto. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the order of writ court requires no interference. The writ petition and the appeal are, accordingly, dismissed. We have not gone into the question of limitation for purpose of issuing notice as we do not find any merit in the appeal. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)