The Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar is tasked by the Patna High Court with taking into consideration and making a decision regarding illegal Vice-Chancellor appointments: Patna High Court

The division bench of Sanjay Karol in Rohit Kumar v. The State of Bihar (Citation: CWJC No.6460 of 2021), CJ., filed a writ petition to overturn the illegal appointments of vice chancellors, pro vice chancellors, and other university officials. Additionally, S. Kumar, J. has directed the Chancellor of Universities of Bihar to consider and decide the petitioner’s grievances without expressing any opinion on the merits.


In accordance with Article 226 of the Indian Constitution of 1950, this case was resolved.In this instance, the petitioner requested that the court issue a writ of mandamus instructing the respondent to release the vehicle, a PIAGGIO APE CITY PLUS CNG Tempo bearing Registration No.BR01PL1868 in favor of the petitioner, who owns the aforementioned automobile.


The court noted that the petition was filed to overturn the unconstitutional appointments of vice chancellors and other university officials, which were in violation of Section 10 of the Bihar State Universities Act of 1976.In addition, for commanding the respondent to initiate an investigation by the Special Vigilance Unit to determine the amount of funds manipulated by higher officials and for directing the authorities to investigate the financial violations committed by universities.

The decision in D.N. Jeevaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 2 SCC 653—in which the Court stated that procedural complexities ought to take a back seat in public interest litigation—was taken into consideration by the Court.In addition, courts are more open to public interest litigation regarding issues of good governance. On the other hand, litigation that is primarily directed against a single organization or individual should not be considered or should be considered very rarely because public spirited litigants have access to other remedies and should be encouraged to use them.As a result, the petition was granted by the Court in the following terms:

The petitioner must submit a representation to the authority in order to have the complaint resolved within the next four weeks.

Within four months of its filing, the authority must consider the petition and issue an expedited reasoned and speaking order, as well as communicate the reasons to the petitioner.

In accordance with natural justice principles, give the parties a fair hearing and a chance to record all relevant materials and documents.

In addition, the Court granted the petitioner permission to proceed with the same and subsequent cause of action before the appropriate forum or Court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”



Click Here To View Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *