2025:JHHC:25369 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3602 of 2025 ------ Binay Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Sudam Narayan Pandey, R/o Budhiya Dhanghatta, Sirsi, P.O. Budhiya Dhanghatta, P.S. Sirsi, District Purnia (Bihar). … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Water Resources, Irrigation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi. 4. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rehabilitation, North Koyal Project, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate Mr. Bhanu Kumar No.1, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Zaid Imam, AC to SC-VII ------ 04/ 26.08.2025 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays for reinstatement and regularization of his services in terms of order dated 18.08.2009 passed in Civil Appeal No.918 of 2008 (State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Gopal Singh) and 25.01.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. The facts of this case as emerged from the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Storekeeper in Rehabilitation Office No.2, Chandil, on 18.10.1986. As his appointment was illegal, his services were terminated w.e.f. 22.02.1997. 4. Challenging the order of termination, the petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court being C.W.J.C. No.3345 of 1997. The writ petition was allowed 2025:JHHC:25369 2 and the order of termination was set aside. The State of Bihar, filed Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.675 of 2000, along with other Letters Patent Appeals. Those LPAs were allowed vide judgment dated 29.01.2023, whereby the order passed by the Writ Court was set aside. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner and others filed S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal on 11.07.2006 in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of aforesaid orders, his joining was never accepted. He thus prays that his services should be regularized and he should be allowed to join his services. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 18.10.1986. His services were terminated on 22.02.1997, holding that the same was an illegal appointment. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP in terms with the judgment passed in the case of Uma Devi (3) (supra). The fact clearly suggests that the petitioner was a backdoor entrant and was appointed illegally. It is the irregularity, which can be regularized but not illegality. Illegality cannot be cured. 8. The petitioner claims that similarly situated persons have been kept in service, thus the petitioner should also be given the same benefit. This plea of the petitioner also cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner was individually 2025:JHHC:25369 3 considered and the petitioner lost in the judicial forums. 9. Further, it is admitted that the petitioner is out of service since 22.02.1997. Since he is not in service, his services also cannot be regularized, as for regularization, a person, first needs to be in service. Since the termination order has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court by setting aside the order passed in the writ petition, there is no question of reinstatement of the petitioner also. 10. From what has been held above, I find that no ground has been made out in this writ petition to regularize the services of the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-2