IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20096 of 2025 ====================================================== Rajaram Prasad Singh son of Late Ram Raksha Singh @ Shiv Raksha Singh, resident of Village Tarhari, P.S. Halsi, District Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Chancellor of Bihar Raj Bhawan Patna. 2. The Vice Chancellor Munger University, Munger. 3. The Registrar Cum Returning Officer Munger University Munger. 4. Sri Ramadhar Sharma, Gandhid Vichar Vibhag, Sanjay Gandhi Smarak Mahila Mahavidyalaya Sheikhpura. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Vinay Pd. Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Adv. For the Munger Univ. : Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 31-01-2026 Heard the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is limited to the extent he is seeking a direction upon the respondents, especially respondent no. 3 to recount the ballot polled in the election of Senate for general category teachers representative of affiliated College under Munger University, Munger conducted on 14.08.2025 and the petitioner was declared elected and certificate was also issued in his favour. But subsequently, in pursuant to a complaint filed by respondent no. 4 before the Chancellor vide Notification No. 240 dated 19.11.2025, recounting was ordered. In pursuant, thereto, the recounting was done on 21.11.2025 and the respondent no. 4 has been declared elected by margin of one vote. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that recounting of the votes have not been done in a proper manner Patna High Court CWJC No.20096 of 2025(2) dt.31-01-2026 2/2 and the vote, which was initially cast in favour of the petitioner, on objection has been counted in favour of the respondent no. 4 and thereby, the petitioner has been caused to suffer a lose without his fault, irrespective of the fact that he was initially declared elected. 4. Learned Advocate for the University made a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked mainly with respect to election of Senate of the University, as the same is an internal affairs of the Senate. Moreover, recounting was done on a complaint made by one of the contested party, in pursuant to the order of the Chancellor of the University, and accordingly, the respondent no. 4 has been elected. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the nature of the dispute, which primarily pertaining to election of the Senate of the University, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take other recourse, available under the law. shivank/- (Harish Kumar, J) U