CIVIL APPEAL 12787 of 2022 on 10 May 1991

1. Kamlesh Kumar Son of Late Avadhbihari Singh, Resident of Village-Jhinguri, P.O.- Jhinguri, P.S.- Pouthu, District- Aurangabad.Jhinguri, P.O.- Jhinguri, P.S.- Pouthu, District- Aurangabad.

2. Ramnaresh Singh Son of Late Chitman Singh, Resident of Village- RampurKhurd, Ward No.- 5, Kamaul, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur.Khurd, Ward No.- 5, Kamaul, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur.

3. Bhushan Prasad Singh Son of Late Parmeshwari Narayan Singh, Resident ofVillage- Kamaul Chatarbhuj, P.S.- Sahebganj, District Muzaffarpur.Village- Kamaul Chatarbhuj, P.S.- Sahebganj, District Muzaffarpur.

4. Sukeshar Ram Son of Late Shivdhar Ram, Resident of Village- Ashapatti,Parsounl, P.O.- Kurnowl, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur.Parsounl, P.O.- Kurnowl, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Department ofEducation, Government of Bihar, Patna.Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar,Patna.Patna.

3. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar.5.The Vice Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.5.The Vice Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

6. The Registrar, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

7. The Finance Officer, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

8. The Principal, C.N. College, Sahebganj, Muzaffarpur.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Jagjit Roshan, AdvocateFor the State: Mr. Prabhakar Jha ( GP- 27 )For the University: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGHORAL ORDER

03-03-2025

Heard Mr. Jagjit Roshan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Prabhakar Jha, learned GP-27appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh,learned counsel for the B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University(hereinafter referred to as the 'University').

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioner is covered bythe decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed inCWJC No. 4986 of 2021 (Pinki Devi vs. the State of Bihar &Ors.) and analogous cases, wherein, upon consideration of thejudgment passed in Braj Kishore Singh & Ors. Vs. The State ofBihar & Ors., reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 509, the batch of writpetitions were disposed of with a direction to consider theentitlement of the petitioners, if the services of the petitioner hasbeen found to be continuous without any interruption till theperiod of their regularization. The entire period has to becounted in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in thecase of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering OfficersAssociation Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1990 SC1607. Learned counsel further submitted that the individualcases of the petitioners also deserve to be considered forcalculating the pensionary benefits from the date of their initialappointment and in this regard, the petitioners seek to filedetailed representation before the Registrar of the Bhim RaoAmbedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Statesubmits that the petitioners were appointed without followingthe due procedure on the unsanctioned posts. The University in

an illegal manner had regularized their services as per resolutionno. 989 dated 10.05.1991 which was withdrawn by the StateGovernment vide letter dated 28.11.1995. Learned counselsubmits that in this regard, specific statements have been madein paragraphs no. 15 to 17 of the counter affidavit filed onbehalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3, which are reproducedhereinafter:

"15. That it is stated here that theUniversity regularized the services of the petitionerson its own in the year 2012 by different office ordersas contained in Annexure-12 to the writ applicationrelying on resolution of the State Governmentbearing no. 989 dated 10.05.1991 which was not inexistence in the year 2012 as the same was alreadywithdrawn in the year 1995. The said regularizationwas made in violation of circular of the StateGovernment bearing no. 1820 dated 17.11.1998.The State Government never approved the saidregularization made by the University, which wasmandatory in view of circular dated 17.11.1998 assuch. It is further stated that the regularizationmade by the University is not valid.

16. That it is further important tomention here that there is no averment in the writapplication that the petitioners were appointedpursuant to any advertisement following the dueprocess of law for appointment.

17. That from the facts stated above, it isquite clear that the writ petitioners were appointedwithout following the procedure of appointmentagainst the unsanctioned post. Their services havealso not been regularized in terms of letter of theState Government bearing letter no. 1820 dated17.11.1998 though the same was regularized by theUniversity in illegal manner in view of resolutionissued vide letter no. 989 dated 10.05.1991 withouttaking note of the fact that the said letter has beenwithdrawn by letter dated 28.11.1995."

4. Heard the parties.

Niraj/-

U

5. Having considered the rival submissions made onbehalf of the parties, as well as, material available on record, inthe peculiar facts of the case that the posts on which thepetitioners were appointed are not a sanctioned post approvedby the State Government, the Registrar of the University mayconsider to make payment to the petitioners from its owninternal sources in view of their admission that the petitionershave continuously worked.

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition standsdisposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)