Vipul M. Pancholi, J. –

I.A. No. 9 of 2023

The present interlocutory application has been filed by the present respondent No. 4/original petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with a prayer that he may be permitted to place on record the Letters Patent Appeal by way of additional evidence on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant/original respondent No. 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the present opponents and the original writ petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, as per the communication dated 28.11.2023, Dr. Kumar Chandan has not submitted his DNB Certificate in the college and he was appointed as a Lecturer on the basis of M.B.B.S. Degree. The said fact came to the notice of the present applicant after disposal of the petition and, therefore, the said documents be permitted to be brought on record. It is further submitted that the appellant Dr. Kumar Chandan has played fraud and from the document produced, it can be said that he has played fraud. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the aforesaid two documents be considered.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the present opponents opposed this application by contending that the aforesaid documents were not placed before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, learned Single Judge has not discussed anything about the said documents. It is further submitted that now totally new ground is taken by the original opponent No. 4 (the applicant herein). It is further submitted that the applicant may not be allowed to fill in the lacunae and, therefore, the present application be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that this application may not be entertained.

6. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also perused the material placed on record. It would emerge that one Dr. Sachin Kumar Singh had submitted application under R.T.I. Act, 2005 to the 1st appellate authority and pursuant to the said application, some communication was addressed to him. The applicant has failed to point out the source of information received by him. It is not the case of the applicant that he has submitted any application under the R.T.I. Act and he has received the communication with regard to Dr. Kumar Chandan. It is further revealed from the record that, by way of the present application, now the applicant/original respondent No.4 has tried to put forward an entirely new story before this Court in appeal. Even, in the present application, the applicant has not alleged any fraud against the original appellant Dr. Kumar Chandan. The aforesaid two documents suggest that this correspondence was made between Dr. Sachin Kumar Singh and the appellate authority under the R.T.I. Act.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to entertain the present application.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 9 of 2023 stands dismissed.

L.P.A. No. 318 of 2021 & L.P.A. No. 373 of 2021

Both these appeals have been filed under Clause X of Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna wherein the concerned appellants have challenged the order dated 05.03.2021 rendered by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20694 of 2018 (Dr. Pawan Kumar vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science & Ors.).

2. As both these appeals are arising out of the common order and the issue in both these appeals is same, the learned counsels appearing for the parties jointly requested that both these appeals be heard together and be decided by a common order.

3. L.P.A. No. 318 of 2021 has been filed by the original respondent No. 4 Dr. Kumar Chandan whereas L.P.A. No. 373 of 2021 has been filed by original respondent No. 1 and 2 (Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna). At this stage, it is also relevant to note that I.A. No. 9 of 2023 has been filed by the original writ petitioner (opponent No. 4 herein) with a prayer that