IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4273 of 2009 ====================================================== Ranjit Kumar Choudhary, Son of Shree Shital Prasad Choudhary, resident of village – Varsaliganj, P.O. – Mirjanhat, P.S. – Mozahidpur, District – Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. Tilkamanjhi Bhagalpur University through its Vice-Chancellor, Bhagalpur – 812007. 2. Vice-Chancellor, Tilkamanjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur – 812007. 3. Registrar, Tilkamanjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur – 812007. 4. Smt. Prema Jha, Father’s name not known, Vice-Chancellor, Tilkamanjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur – 812007. 5. Sri Arun Kumar Singh, father’s name not known, Registrar, Tilkamanjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur – 812007. 6. Sri Prashant Kumar Jha, father’s name not known, K.N. Jha Lane, Champanagar, Bhagalpur. 7. Sri Rakesh Kumar, Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, C/o Sri G.P. Yadav, Bishanpur, Rampur, Bhagalpur. 8. Sri Kingson Kumar, father’s name not known, C/o Sri Subhash Mandal, Vikramshila Colony, Nayabazar, Bhagalpur. 9. Shree Pratyush Jha, father’s name not known, Raj Gopal Sakar Lane, P.O. – Naya Bazar, Bhagalpur. 10. Shree Ranjeet Kumar, father’s name not known, C/o Singho Das, Sahibganj, Harijan Tola, Bhagalpur. 11. Sri Rakesh Kumar Jha, father’s name not known, Rai H.M.T. Road, Barari, Bhagalpur. 12. Nusrat Jabeen, father’s name not known, Ghanichak, Mojahidpur, Bhagalpur. 13. Sri Vivek, father’s name not known, Laheri Tola, Naya Bazar, Tatarpur, Bhagalpur. 14. Md. Rafiqueudin, father’s name not known, C/o Md. Zamaluddin, Bhikhanpur, Gumti No. 3, Kotwali, Bhagalpur. 15. Sri Navin Kumar Jha, father’s name not known, Kalia Rahmanpur, Mirjanhat, Bhagalpur, 16. Sri Lalan Kumar Yadav, father’s name not known, C/o Anil Yadav, Urdu Bazar, Tatarpur, Bhagalpur. 17. Sri Vishwanath Mandal, father’s name not known, Sahibganj Chowki, Champanagar, Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhakar Kumar, Advocate For the University : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) Patna High Court CWJC No.4273 of 2009 (4) dt.20-09-2011 2 / 3 2 04/ 20-09-2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner, the University and the counsel representing private Respondents 6, 7, 8, 10 to 17. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of entire selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. 193/98 and the consequential orders issued, whereby appointments have been made. Petitioner’s case is that ignoring law of reservation and reservation roaster appointments have been made on the post of Proof Readers. The post of Proof Readers was advertised through Advertisement No. 193/98 there were five vacancies as per the advertisement of Proof Reader’s post. The advertisement was published on 25.10.2008. It seems that corrigendum was published on 8.11.2008 and instead of five posts only three posts were advertised. As per the corrigendum one post was in unreserved category and two posts for E.B.C. There was no post advertised for S.C. category. Petitioner belongs to S.C. category and he is claiming his candidature against the post reserved in S.C. category. Considering the fact that five posts which was earlier advertised through advertisement dated 25.10.2008 was reduced to three posts, I do not find that on any occasion Patna High Court CWJC No.4273 of 2009 (4) dt.20-09-2011 3 / 3 3 the petitioner has challenged the selection proceeding. In case the petitioner has come before this Court on this ground that maliciously two posts were reduced by the authorities and for that reason he could not be selected against the post, which could not have been reserved for S.C. category. The proper time for challenging the advertisement was for the petitioner before the selection process could have been initiated. The petitioner did not challenge the advertisement or the corrigendum. There was no vacancy for S.C. candidates, which was only the reason that the petitioner’s candidature could not be considered. I do not find any merit in this application, it is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J)