Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 991 (PAT)

Ashok Nandan Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2004-09-18

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.8.1999 passed by the Registrar of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University (Annexure-8) whereby the prayer of the petitioner for regularising his service as Laboratory Incharge in the department of Botany of L.N. College, Bhagwanpur has been rejected. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 8.10.1999 (Annexure-9) whereby the State Government has declined to give approval for the absorption of the petitioner in service. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Laboratory Incharge in the department of Botany in L.N. College, Bhagwanpur by the Principal of the said College on 2.9.1985 and when his service was not being regularised and salary not paid, he preferred C.W.J.C. No. 4343 of 1996 before this Court. The said writ application, when taken up for consideration on 27.3.1997 a prayer was made by the petitioner to withdraw the same with liberty to him to file representation before the University in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 1997(1) PLJR 509 . Prayer of the petitioner was allowed and it was directed that in case the petitioner files representation, same be disposed of within a period of three months. In the light of the aforesaid, petitioner filed representation and by the impugned order, his prayer for regularisation has been rejected. 3. Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the statement sent by the Principal (Annexure-6) clearly shows that the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Incharge on 2.9.1985 and as such, service of the petitioner ought to have been regularised. He points out that the persons similarly situated, namely, Md. Yawar Ali Rizvi and Harendra Kumar Singh who were appointed as Laboratory Incharge in Botany and Chemistry on 2.9.1985 and 16.4.1984 respectively, have been regularised and hence, the action of the respondents in not regularising the petitioners service is discriminatory in nature affecting the petitioners fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel. The claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as Laboratory Incharge by order dated 2.9.1985 was examined by the University and found untenable. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel. The claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as Laboratory Incharge by order dated 2.9.1985 was examined by the University and found untenable. While doing so, it has been observed that the petitioner had claimed that his case was recommended by the Principal of the College but no such recommendation, in fact, was sent. The statement dated 20.4.1999 (Annexure-6) is the statement sent by the Principal compiling the claim of the petitioner and other persons and in that, it has been clearly stated that although the petitioner claims to have been appointed on 2.9.1985 by the Principal but from the record, it does not appear that any appointment was made. It has also been observed that his name does not find place in the attendance register. It has also been observed that the petitioner has not produced any primary or secondary evidence which could establish his claim of continued service in the college. 4. The cases of Yawar Ali Rizvi and Harendra Kumar Singh have also been considered by the university and they have been found to have been working and hence, respondents came to the conclusion that their cases stand on different footing. The aforesaid finding has been arrived at by the University on consideration of relevant material and impugned orders being based on such finding do not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 5. I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed in limine.