IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8415 of 2009 Bharat Choudhary, S/o Sri Bajrang Bali Choudhary Professor-in- Charge, Principal, B.P.Singh College, At Sri Bhikham Bhagwat Nagar Semari, P.S.-Dawat, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. ……….Petitioner. Versus 1. The Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara, through its Vice- Chancellor. 2. Vice-Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara. 3. The Inspector of College (Arts and Commerce) Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara. 4. The S.D.O., Vikramganj-cum-President, Adhoc Committee of Principal, B.P. Singh College, Sri Bhikham Bhagwat Nagar Semari, at + P.S.-Vikramganj, District-Rohtas (at Sasaram). 5. Triloki Nath Singh, S/o not known, Lecturer, Political science Department, Principal, B.P.Singh College, at-Sri Bhikham Bhagwat Nagar, Semari, P.S.- Dawat, District-Rohtas (at Sasaram). …………….. Respondents. ----------- 2/ 21.07.2009 Heard counsels appearing for the petitioner and the University. Petitioner is apprehensive on account of letter issued by the Inspector of College (Arts and Commerce), Veer Kunwar Singh University, contained in Letter No. 546/C/Estab./09, dated 30.6.2009. Through this letter the Inspector of College(Arts and Commerce), Veer Kunwar Singh University has recommended for positing respondent no. 5 as Professor In-Charge of B.P.Singh College, Semari, Rohtas. Question was put to the counsel appearing for the petitioner, whether on the basis of the letter dated 30.6.2009 any consequential order and resolution has been passed by the Ad-hoc Committee for appointing respondent no. 5 as Professor In-charge of the College, the answer was in negative and the counsel for the - 2 - petitioner is not in a position to show that any such order has been passed. The counsel for the petitioner was further asked to show any statement in the writ application that on account of letter dated 30.6.2009, any of orders, directions or communications issued from his office in capacity of Professor In-charge has been ignored or rejected by the concerned office/authority. The counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to indicate any such example, neither there is any such pleading in the writ application. Petitioner’s counsel admitted that petitioner is presently working as Professor In- charge and Respondent No. 5 has not assumed charge of the office. Considering these facts, I find that the writ application is pre-mature. Petitioner is still working on the post of Professor In- charge and there is no reason for anyone including University, Examination Controller or any authority to ignore or to disobey the directions, orders or communication issued by the petitioner. This application is being disposed of. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)