Procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in public interest litigation. However, in matters that may not be of moment or a litigation essentially directed against one organization or individual, such petitions ought not to be entertained or should be rarely entertained.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19179 of 2021

======================================================

Anand Vaibhav, Son of Gayaneshwar Singh, resident of Village/Mohalla

Block Colony Satyendra Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Aurangabad, District -

Aurangabad (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Higher Education

Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, New Secretariat,

Patna.

3.

The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University Bodh Gaya, District - Gaya.

4.

The Registrar, Magadh University Bodh Gaya District - Gaya.

5.

Dr. Ganesh Mahto, the Principal of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College

Aurangabad Sahapur P.O. and P.S. Aurangabad, District - Aurangabad

(Bihar).

6.

Sri Janardan Singh Son of Dev Raj Singh, resident of Village and P.S.

Kachhwan, District Rohtas at present posted as Head Clerk at Ram Lakhan

Singh Yadav College Aurangabad (Bihar).

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Smt. Shilpa Singh (G.A.12)

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR)

(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the

Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.)

Date : 05-01-2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Patna High Court CWJC No.19179 of 2021 dt.05-01-2022

2/7

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

(a) For a direction to the respondent

University authorities to take an action in view of the

enquiry report dated 05.01.2018 submitted by enquiry

committee of Magadh university against the Private

Respondent no. 6 who has ruined the healthy reaching

atmosphere of the College by misusing his post of

Head clerk in the said College.

(b) For a direction to the respondent

University to cancel the appointment letter of the

Respondent no. 6 i.e. dated 10.05.2021 which has

been issued by Respondent no. 5 without jurisdiction

and contrary to provision of law by appointing to

respondent no.6 on the post of Head clerk in Ram

Lakhan Singh Yadav College Aurangabad.

(c) For a direction to the respondent State

authority to take legal action against Respondent no.6

by lodging F.I.R. for obtaining post of head clerk in

the said college by committing forgery in obtaining his

initial appointment letter and he is posted in the said

college on the basis of fake appointment letter which

is clear from the enquiry report also submitted by

enquiry committee dated 05.01.2018.

(d) For any other order/orders on the basis of

facts and circumstances stated herein after of the

case.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. N. Jeevaraj Vs.

Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2

SCC 653, paragraphs 34 to 38 observed as under:-

Patna High Court CWJC No.19179 of 2021 dt.05-01-2022

3/7

“34. The learned counsel for the parties

addressed us on the question of the bona fides of

Nagalaxmi Bai in filing a public interest litigation. We

leave this question open and do not express any

opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the decision

of the High Court in this regard.

35. However, we note that generally speaking,

procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in

public interest litigation. This Court held in Rural

Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.

[Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of

U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] to this effect as follows:

(SCC p. 515, para 16)

“16. The writ petitions before us are not inter

parties disputes and have been raised by way of

public interest litigation and the controversy

before the court is as to whether fo