IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3601 of 2017 ====================================================== 1. Narayan Kumar son of Late Suresh Kumar resident of Village P.O. - Karnpur, P.S.- Supaul, Distt. - Supaul. 2. Ramjee Mahto son of Late Jangal Mahto resident of Village P.O. - Karnpur, P.S.- Supaul, Distt. - Supaul. 3. Krishna Kant Jha son of Sri Ram Chandra Jha Vill. Post - Sukhpur, P.S. - Supaul, Distt. - Supaul. 4. Siyaram Choudhary son of Sri Mahabir Choudhary resident of vill. - Nariar Bhengha, P.O. - Nariar, P.S. - Saharsa, Distt. - Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation-cum-Dy. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Prasad (AC to AAG-4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 28-02-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Learned Counsel for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:- “I. For quashing of the orders contained in Memo No.1259 dated 08.08.2012 (annexed as Annexure-P/2) and Memo No.1505 dated 29.08.2013 (annexed as Annexure-P/3) whereby and whereunder the claim of regularization of the petitioners was rejected Patna High Court CWJC No.3601 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025 2/11 in a most arbitrary manner without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in violation of the principle of equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as other similarly situated persons were regularized with all consequential benefits. II. For directing the Respondents to regularize the Petitioners on the vacant and sanctioned post on which they were working regularly for more than 10 years before being illegally terminated from service in light of the decision and direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Uma Devi Case and M.L. Keshri Case. III. For directing the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits including salary and length of service to the Petitioners from the initial date of appointment. IV. To pass any other order/orders in shape of a consequential relief to which the petitioners may be found to be legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the instant case at hand.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are permanent residents of Bihar. Petitioner no.1 was appointed on the post of Peon against vacant sanctioned post at the Rehabilitation Office, Koshi Yojna, Supaul vide Patna High Court CWJC No.3601 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025 3/11 Memo No.230 dated 03.05.1983 issued by the Rehabilitation Officer, Koshi Yojna, Supaul on temporary basis. Counsel submits that petitioner no.1 worked regularly to the satisfaction of his superiors and as such, he was promoted to the post of Tracer and posted at Land Acquisition Office, Sasaram vide Memo No.29 dated 06.01.1989 issued by the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. Counsel submits that petitioner no.2 was initially appointed against a vacant sanctioned post on temporary basis by the Rehabilitation Officer, Koshi Yojna, Supaul on 03.05.1983 and worked as Mapak for a considerable period of time. Counsel further submits that petitioner no.3 was appointed against the vacant sanctioned post of Chainman on temporary basis vide letter issued by the Rehabilitation Officer, Koshi Yojna, Supaul on 03.05.1983 and he also worked to the satisfaction of his superiors and he was promoted to the post of Mapak. Counsel submits that petitioner no.4 was initially appointed against the vacant sanctioned post of Chainman on temporary basis vide letter No.227 dated 03.05.1983 issued by the Rehabilitation Officer, Koshi Yojna, Supaul. Later, his services were approved by the Respondent no.4 vide letter No.83 dated 07.05.1983 and thereafter, petitioner no.4 was awarded first time bound Patna High Court CWJC No.3601 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025 4/11 promotion w.e.f. 20.05.1993 vide Memo No.909 dated 07.04.1994. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners’ were discharging their duties and a show-cause notice was issued as to why their services be not terminated. Counsel submits that petitioners submitted their reply to the said show-cause, but instead of consideration of their reply to the show-cause, petitioners’ services were terminated vide Memo No.3322 dated 06.09.1997, Memo No.589 dated 05.06.1998, Memo No.3330 dated 06.09.1997 and Memo No.3325 dated 06.09.1997. Counsel submits that the petitioners along with other similarly situated persons have moved before this Hon’ble Court in several writ petitions challenging their respective orders of termination which was allowed vide common order dated 01.03.2000 and accordingly, the respective orders of termination were set aside. Counsel further submits that the said common order dated 01.03.2000 was challenged by the State of Bihar in Letters Patent Appeal No.675 of 2000 and other analogous cases and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has pleased to allow the said L.P.A. vide order dated 29.01.2003. Counsel submits that in this regard, Letters Patent Appeal No.270 of 2000 was filed, but the Patna High Court CWJC No.3601 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025 5/11 same relief was not granted and the petitioners and other similarly situated persons preferred Civil Appeal No.5682- 5684/2004 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court assailing the order dated 29.01.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The said Civil Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2006. Counsel submits that petitioners filed a fresh writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.16341 of 2011 seeking direction to the respondents to consider their cases in light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case and in the light of the decision rendered in M.L. Keshri’s case. Thereafter, petitioners have challenged the said order and travelled upto Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.36428 of 2011 arising out of C.W.J.C. No.16341 of 2011 which was dismissed with liberty taken by the petitioners to file a review petition before the High Court. Counsel submits that in the light of the observations taken, petitioners have filed the Civil Review No.92 of 2012 which was allowed vide order dated 07.03.2012 and it was directed that respondents shall be obliged to consider the case of the petitioners in the manner they have done with others similarly situated persons, keeping in view the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi as well as M.L. Keshri. Patna High Court CWJC No.3601 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025 6/11 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that when no order has been passed, then petitioners filed Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3997 of 2012 and during pendency of the said M.J.C. the respondent authorities have passed fresh order on 29.08.2013 in the light of the observations made in the Civil Review No.92 of 2012 and in that background, the said M.J.C. has been disposed off vide order dated 18.01.2017 with liberty to the petitioners to move before the appropriate forum in accordance with law for redressal of their grievance. Counsel further submits that petitioners thereafter, filed the present writ petition challenging the orders contained in Memo No.1259 dated 08.08.2012 (annexed as Annexure-P/2) and Memo No.1505 dated 29.08.2013 (annexed as Annexure-P/3). Counsel submits that in the said orders, petitioners’ case has not been considered at all and they have been treated as illegal appointee which is absolutely wrong and not in accordance with law. Counsel further submits that petitioners in support of their claim has demanded certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but the respondent authorities had not provided the documents and only intimated that those documents are not available. Counsel submits that since, they have denied to Patna High Court CWJC No.3601 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025 7/11 provide those documents, therefore, negative inference shall be drawn against the respondents and not against the petitioners. Counsel in support of his argument relied upon a judgment in case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. with other case reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, particularly paragraph no.26 in which it has been stated that the judgment in Uma Devi case aimed to distinguish between illegal and irregular appointments and it categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one time measure. Counsel for the petitioners conclusively submits that all the petitioners have worked for more than 10 years, but their case has not been considered at all. 6. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the petitioners themselves alleged to be appointee of 1983 and they have already completed the age of about 68 years as at the time of filing the writ petition, the age of petitioners was 61 years in the year 2017. Counsel submits that petitioners filed writ petition and their matter travelled upto Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the petitioners’ case on merits. But only liberty Patna High Court CWJC No.3601 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025 8/11 granted to them to file a review petition before the High Court. Taking this liberty, petitioners have filed the Civil Review petition in which observation was made to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners afresh. Counsel further submits that the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation- cum-Dy. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna has categorically and minutely considered the case of the petitioners and passed final order on 29.08.2013 contained in Memo No.1505 (annexed as Annexure-P/3) which is order impugned. Counsel submits that it is the clear cut observation in the said order that appointment of the petitioners has been found illegal and the reason has also been assigned as to what are the grounds due to which their appointment has been found illegal. Counsel further submits that their appointment has been made without any publication in the local newspaper and in this appointment, names were not sought from the employment exchange. Their appointment was made without following any transparency and in their appointment, roasters have not been complied and this appointment has also been made in gross violation of the letter of the Administrative Department by which ad-hoc appointment was already restrained and it is due to this reason, the authorities have Patna High Court CWJC No.3601 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025 9/11 categorically reached on the conclusion after direction made by this Hon’ble Court that the appointment of the petitioners was illegal. 7. Upon hearing the parties and going through the documents, particularly the recent judgment on which Counsel for the petitioners relied i.e. case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) in which there is a clear cut observation in paragraph no.26 which states as follows:- “While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their Patna High Court CWJC No.3601 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025 10/11 appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.” 8. Upon perusal of the order impugned dated 29.08.2013 contained in Memo No.1505 (annexed as Annexure- P/3), the authorities with a reasoning reached on the conclusion that the appointment of petitioners was illegal and it was not irregular. The grounds of illegality has also been mentioned which states as follows:- “ (i) loZJh ukjk;.k dqekj lsok lekIr vuqjs[kd d`’.k dkar >k jketh egrks lsok lekIr ekid fl;kjke pkS/kjh lsok lekIr tathjokgd johUnz uk0 Bkdqj lsok lekIr fyfid fou; dqekj >k lsok lekIr tathjokgd ,oa “;ke lqanj >k lsok lekIr fyfid dh fu;qfDr iq.kZr% vLFkk;h rkSj ij voS/k :i ls dh xbZ Fkh tcfd dkfeZd ,oa iz”kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx] iVuk ds ia=kd 7639 fnukad 11-06-1986 ds i= ls Li’V gS fd rnFkZ fu;qfDr ij jksd FkhA Patna High Court CWJC No.3601 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025 11/11 (ii) ;g fu;qfDr lekpkj i=ksa esa fcuk foKkiu izdk”ku djk;s dh xbZ FkhA (iii) bl fu;qfDr esa fu;kstuky; ls uke ugha ekaxk x;k Fkk rFkk fcuk ikjn”khZ izfdz;k viuk;s dh xbZ Fkh] tks lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 ,oa 16 dh Hkkoukvksa ds foifjr gSA (iv) bl fu;qfDr esa ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr vkj{k.k jksLVj dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k FkkA” 9. After perusal of the reasoning as well as the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court reached on the conclusion that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made observation in the year 2024 (judgment mentioned above) that only for irregular appointments, this case shall apply. But once, it has been held that petitioners’ appointment has been made illegal, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, there is no case of the petitioners. 10. Hence, with the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Divyansh/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 04/03/2025 Transmission Date NA