Authority: High Court of Judicature at Patna

Order Date: 16-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Md. Obaidullah, resident of Darbhanga, filed a civil writ petition (Case No.18 of 2023) seeking a mandamus directing L.N. Mithila University (LNMU) to issue an appointment letter for the post of Laboratory In‑charge, to post him immediately, to grant all service benefits, and to investigate alleged differential treatment.
  • Respondents: L.N. Mithila University through the Vice‑Chancellor, the Registrar, and the Controller of Examination.
  • Selection Process: Advertisement No. 2180‑83/02 was issued by LNMU. The petitioner applied for Laboratory In‑charge, appeared for written examination on 25‑07‑2012 and interview on 30‑07‑2012, and was declared successful along with other candidates.
  • Non‑issuance of Appointment Letter: The petitioner did not receive an appointment letter while other selected candidates did. He sought clarification via RTI applications on 19‑10‑2016 and 10‑01‑2017; appeals were filed on 29‑09‑2017 and 08‑05‑2019, all without satisfactory response.
  • Subsequent Representations: A detailed representation was filed on 22‑08‑2022 with annexures; still no reply, leading to the present writ petition.
  • University’s Position: The university contended that the petitioner was recommended for the post of PTI (Physical Training Instructor) under Memo No. 10863‑936/12 dated 11‑08‑2012, subject to production of a PTI‑qualification certificate, which the petitioner did not possess; therefore he did not join.
  • Committee Findings:
  • On 15‑02‑2025 a committee, noting the original file was missing and relying on Xerox copies, recorded that an appointment letter for PTI had been issued, but the petitioner did not join; it resolved to appoint him as Laboratory In‑charge in Chemistry from the date the post became vacant and to lodge an FIR for the missing file.
  • A letter dated 17‑02‑2025 (C/DR‑I/1656/25) directed the petitioner to appear with original documents for the Laboratory In‑charge appointment at K.V. Science College, Uchchaith, Benipatti, Madhubani.
  • On 17‑03‑2025 a five‑member committee, after locating the original file, found that the petitioner had been issued a PTI appointment letter on 11‑08‑2012, did not possess the required PTI qualification, and did not join. It concluded that the earlier committee’s decision (15‑02‑2025) was superseded because the selection panel’s validity expired after one year. Consequently, it recommended withdrawal of the FIR and cancellation of the proposed Laboratory In‑charge appointment.
  • Merit List Evidence: The merit list showed the petitioner’s serial number 9 with 63 marks. Dhirendra Kaushal obtained 67 marks (unreserved category) and Krishna Kumar Satyavadi obtained 63 marks (reserved category). Both were appointed as Laboratory In‑charge. The petitioner, also an unreserved candidate, scored lower than Kaushal and therefore was not selected.
  • Court’s Findings: The court observed that the petitioner’s name was not linked to the Laboratory In‑charge post in the merit list; instead, he was listed for PTI alongside Ranjeet Paswan. Since he lacked PTI qualifications, he did not join. The court held that the university’s actions did not constitute illegal denial of appointment.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it in its entirety.
  • Any pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Topics: Appointment Dispute, Higher Education Recruitment