IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.705 of 2017 ======================================================

Krishna Kumar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar and Ors ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shekhar Kumar Singh, Adv For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sinha, Adv For B.N.M.U. : Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Adv Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv Mr. Rajni Kant Singh, Adv For U.O.I. : Ms. Punam Kumari Singh, CGC Ms. Sweta Priya, Adv ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

14 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-University, learned counsel for the Union of India and learned counsel for the State.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2014, an advertisement was published in the daily newspaper for appointment in Grade-IV for the post of peon in B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura, although 60 posts were advertised for appointment. The petitioner contends that the petitioner applied and thereafter, the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Registrar of B.N. Mandal University was pleased to issue Admit Card, pursuant to which the petitioner appeared in the written examination which was held on 17.04.2016. The petitioner contends that the petitioner qualified in the written examination and his name was at serial no. 23 of the merit list. Thereafter, a call letter for interview was issued to the petitioner, which was sent by post on 23.11.2016 fixing the date of interview/councelling on 28.11.2016 at 10:30 A.M. The said letter as per the postal department was received by the petitioner on 29.11.2016 and i.e. why the petitioner could not appeared in councelling on 28.11.2016. However, the councelling was going on 29.11.2016 also.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that on

29.11.2016, the petitioner went to participate in the councelling but he was not allowed to participate. The petitioner thereafter contends that on the same day i.e. on 29.11.2016, he submitted a representation vide Annexure-6 before the Vice-Chancellor of the University and thereafter on 01.12.2016, he again submitted another representation before the Registrar of the University vide Annexure-7 raising his grievance that he was not allowed to appear in the councelling on 29.11.2016.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-

University, there was no specific reply with regard to the fact as by the office of the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University or not. It is for this reason that by order dated 01.12.2025, the respondent-University was directed to file a supplementary counter affidavit specifically responding to the so called representation dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure-6) and representation dated 01.12.2016 (Annexure-7), clarifying as to whether these representations were received in the office of the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University or not. It is pertinent to observe that these representations do not carry proof of receiving given by the office of the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University.

5. In Compliance of the order dated 01.12.2025, the respondent-University has filed a supplementary counter affidavit and in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, it has been stated as follows:

“4. That it is respectfully stated and submitted that in compliance of the order dated 01.12.2025, passed in the present writ petition, the University verified the records of the case and found that the 01.12.2016 addressed to the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University (Annexure-6 & 7 to the writ petition) were not submitted in the respective offices of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University or even in the University. The representation annexed with the writ petition has been written by the petitioner only with a view to substantiate his claim in the writ petition. Fur