Satya Prakash vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 11 October, 2023

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Satya Prakash vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 11 October, 2023

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       W.P.(S) No. 3327 of 2018

     Satya Prakash                                 ...      ...        Petitioner
                                    Versus
     Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education,
     Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Ors.
                                               ...    ...      Respondents
     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                                  -----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra, AC to Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Prabhat Kr Sinha, Sr. Panel Counsel For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Advocate For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Prasenjit Mahato, Advocate

-----

I.A. No. 674 of 2022

16/11.10.2023 The present interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant - Kali Das Tiwary for adding him as party respondent in this case.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the present interlocutory application, it appears that the applicant had also applied for the post of Deputy Registrar in the Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi in pursuance of Advertisement No. CUJ/Advt./2017-18/03 dated 24.05.2017. However, he was not appointed on the post of Deputy Registrar, rather the respondent no. 4 - Md. Abdul Halim was appointed on the said post, whose appointment has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

3. On perusal of different paragraphs of the present interlocutory application, it also appears that the applicant who is at present working in the respondent-University as Assistant Registrar has made several allegations against the University, in addition to contending that the appointment of the respondent no. 4 is void ab-initio as the applicant having the requisite qualification for appointment on the said post, has not been selected for the same. Under the said circumstance, he seeks his impleadment as party respondent in the present writ petition.

4. The present interlocutory application suggests that the applicant is aggrieved with the appointment of the respondent no. 4 as the Deputy Registrar in the respondent-University. Under the said circumstance, if the applicant was so aggrieved, he should have filed a writ petition, rather than filing an application at this stage seeking his impleadment as party respondent in this case.

5. The present interlocutory application preferred by the applicant being a misconceived one is accordingly dismissed.

W.P.(S) No. 3327 of 2018

6. No counter affidavits have yet been filed to the amended writ petition by different sets of respondents.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents pray for four weeks' more time by way of last indulgence to file counter affidavits to the amended writ petition.

8. Considering the said prayer, put up this case under the heading "For Admission" on 04.12.2023.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court