Disposed

Subh Narain Pd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC22 Oct 2013CWJC/20623/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regularization of his services as a Class-IV employee. The High Court held that service regularization cannot be a mode of appointment and directed the respondent college to submit records of all such employees for a transparent screening process by the University.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal of the College to submit records of all Class-IV employees within two months for screening by the University Appointment Committee.

Subh Narain Pd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20623 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== Subh Narain Prasad, son of Sri Harihar Ram, at Post- Pakri Ara, P.S.- Ara Nawada, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara, Bhojpur. 3. The Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara, Bhojpur . 4. The Principal Maharaja College, Ara, Bhojpur.

¶4

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar, A.C. to S.C. 22 For the University : Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶5

5 22-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is that his services should be regularized in the same manner in which the Veer Kunwar Singh University (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’) has regularized the services of 16 persons by a Notification dated 29^th September 2012.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is identical to the aforementioned 16 persons whose services were regularized under the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 29^th September 2012 as contained in Annexure-1.

¶8

By filing counter affidavit, Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand has submitted that there are no records of the petitioner’s service

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.20623 of 2012 (5) dt.22-10-2013

¶10

2 / 4

¶11

available in the University inasmuch as such appointment of the petitioner was made by the Principal of the Maharaja College, Ara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the College’). He has also referred to a communication dated 4^th December 2012 enclosed in the counter affidavit as Annexure-A would show that the Principal of the College has been asked to send the service records of the petitioner including the proof of his continuation in service and payment of salary from the alleged date of his appointment on 27^th January 1986 as projected in the letter of appointment of the petitioner (Annexure-2 of the writ application). According to Mr. Singh, the Principal of the College has not yet responded and till date he has not produced the service records of the petitioner so as to enable the University to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation.

¶12

In the considered opinion of this Court, regularisation of service cannot be a mode of appointment and, in fact, regularisation can only be made by way of one time measure but then as the University and its Vice-Chancellor had proposed to regularize the service by the aforesaid decision taken on 29^th September 2012, it was incumbent for the University to at least circulate a notice to all the Class-IV employees who were allegedly appointed by the Principal of the College. In fact, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University should not have proceeded on the pick and choose basis by only confining the cases of such persons who were petitioners before the High Court. To that extent, the grievance of the petitioner seems to be genuine that he too alike those 16 persons on being appointed by the Principal as Class-IV employees was working and therefore, his services ought to have also been regularized.

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.20623 of 2012 (5) dt.22-10-2013

¶14

3 / 4

¶15

Nonetheless, since the matter has received consideration of the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University who have sought necessary information from the Principal of the College, this Court would direct the Principal of Maharaja College, Ara, Bhojpur to send full information not only in respect of the petitioner but of all other Class-IV employees who are said to have been appointed by the Principal and yet are continuing without being regularized in service. This exercise must be completed by the Principal of the College within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶16

Once the list of Class-IV employees appointed by the Principal of the College continuing in Maharaja College, Ara is received, it will be screened by the Appointment Committee of the University, which will then submit its recommendation to the Vice-Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor thereafter will be under obligation not only to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation but all other Class-IV employees strictly in accordance with policy that may be framed by the ViceChancellor for such regularisation.

¶17

Let it be made clear that if in this exercise the number of sanctioned posts in the Maharaja College, Ara is not available and the 16 persons who have already been regularized by an order dated 29^th September 2012, their cases would also be reopened for enabling the University and its Vice-Chancellor to regularize only the senior most persons against the available sanctioned post. A final decision, therefore, must be taken in the case of the petitioner within a period of six months in the manner indicated above but only by a regularly appointed Vice-Chancellor and not by the present Acting/Incharge Vice-Chancellor.

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.20623 of 2012 (5) dt.22-10-2013

¶19

4 / 4

¶20

With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ application is disposed of.

¶21

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/-

Subh Narain Pd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subh Narain Pd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar Rishikesh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Hazrat Ali and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Priyanka Kumari and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sri Nirmal Kumar Nirmal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Uday Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.