IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13807 of 2009 1. TARKESHWAR SINGH S/O- MAHESH SINGH TAPESHWAR SINGH INDU MAHILA COLLEGE , ARRAH Versus 1. VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AT ARRAH 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR , VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH 3. SRI R.P. SINGH , VICE CHANCELLOR VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH 4. THE INSPECTOR OF COLLEGES VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH 5. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O- LATE JAN MEJAN SINGH MOH- BANDHAN TOLA , DEO LAKHAN NIWAS , PO+ P.S+DISTT- ARRAH ----------- 2/ 05/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the University. The facts of the dispute with regard to the Governing Body has been adequately noticed in the order dated 23.1.2009 in C.W.J.C. No.2448/08 on the earlier occasion. In pursuance thereof an order has been passed by the Vice Chancellor dated 13.2.2009, but bearing the date 17.2.2009 below his initials. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in earlier writ petition Satyendra Narayan Singh, was directed to deposit additional papers in support of his claim by 17.2.2009 under an order dated 13.2.2009. Surprisingly, the impugned order has been passed the same day i.e. 13.2.2009. He additionally sought to raise further issues with regard to the impugned order of the Vice Chancellor not being competent to pass the order in light of discussions 2 contained in the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2448/08. Learned counsel for the University submits that he has instructions to state that the order has, in fact, been passed on 17.2.2009 and not on 13.2.2009. The latter date is an inadvertent error. Well aware of the order the aforesaid Satyendra Narayan Singh has chosen not to file the present writ application which has now been instituted by another claimant of the governing body in question. The recitals in the order-sheet, in a judicial or quasi judicial proceeding are considered sacrosanct. Any errors therein, if alleged, are appropriately to be decided by the author of the order before whom events have transpired and parties have appeared after which orders have been passed. It is not possible for any other court to reassess such factual contentions with regard to an order-sheet. Prima facie, there appears to be an incongruousness in the impugned order when it refers to both the dates. The impression it generates is that the order has been passed on 13.2.2009. Since the matter is being remanded to the Vice Chancellor, this Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to consider the submissions and 3 counter submissions that the Vice Chancellor was competent or not to pass the order since these are matters which could appropriately be considered and disposed by the Vice Chancellor in his order itself. The order dated 13.2.2009 as communicated by order dated 25.2.2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded back for decision in accordance with the directions of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2448/08 to the authority. Needless to state that since the matter has been remanded, the Vice Chancellor is required to decide all issues of facts and law that may be raised before him inter alia with regard to the order-sheet. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)