JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for quashing the decision taken by the Committee, constituted by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Department, vide memo no. 3604 dated 27.8.2015, whereby the committee has declined to regularize the services of the petitioner by the decision dated 11.2.2016. Further prayer has been made to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment. Factual Matrix: 2. An advertisement was floated vide letter dated 10.5.1979 by Commercial Taxes Commissioner for appointment against the post created by memo no. 3408 dated 27.3.1979 for Gumla Check Post and Gumla Check Centre. Vide office order dated 9.8.1979, a Selection Committee was constituted, consisting of three members for appointment as per the advertisement. The name of the petitioner was registered in the employment exchange bearing registration no. C3180/1977, as the petitioner had already completed his graduation and as such got himself registered before the employment exchange, Ranchi, for getting employment. As the petitioner was registered before the Employment Exchange, he was called for an interview for appointment on the post of Peon which was held on 10.8.1979 in which the petitioner along with others appeared and accordingly result of successful candidates were published on 25.10.1979. The petitioner along with others were appointed on the post of peon in the pay scale of Rs. 144-1-160-2-190/- vide office order no. 2291 dated 19.11.1979. It has been further stated that after joining of the service, the petitioner discharged his duties with utmost sincerity and to the utmost satisfaction of all the concerned authorities. It is further case of the petitioner that vide resolution no. 2215 dated 11.2.1985 issued by the Personnel & Administrative Department for appointment of Class IV employees of Finance, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Bihar, the case of the petitioner along with several others was considered for fresh appointment on the post of Clerk as the petitioner was having requisite qualification, as he was a graduate and as such he was granted appointment on the post of clerk from the date of their joining vide office order dated 23.2.1988 and the name of the petitioner found place at sl. no. 7. The petitioner states that as he fulfills the requisite qualifications, he was appointed on the post of Clerk. no. 7. The petitioner states that as he fulfills the requisite qualifications, he was appointed on the post of Clerk. It is specific case of the petitioner that he was appointed in Gumla Check Post and its affairs were taken care by the Ranchi Administrative Office itself. The petitioner served the Gumla Check Post to the utmost satisfaction of the Department. 3. The petitioner was also transferred on several occasions from one district to another by the Department and was given all the allowances save and except Assured Career Progression (ACP). It is specific case of the petitioner that as the petitioner was serving the department since long that is from the date of initial appointment i.e. 1979 but their cases were not considered for regularization and as such they moved the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(S) No. 869 of 2013 for a direction to the respondent-state for consideration of their cases for regularization. In view of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 , judgment the Hon'ble court after hearing the parties made a specific direction to the state to consider the case of petitioners in view of the notification no. 1348 dated 13.2.2015 wherein a rule was framed for regularization of the services of the employees who have been irregularly appointed and are working in the State of Jharkhand. The respondent-State in view of the order and direction of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.(S) No. 869 of 2013 and analogous cases rejected the case of petitioner vide its order dated 11.2.2016 on the ground that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not on a sanctioned post. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection the petitioner who is a peon has knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Sooraj Singh urges that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. Mr. Sinha, argues that in view of the appointment letter itself, Annexure 1 read with Annexure 4, it is crystal clear that appointment was issued against Annexure 1 for sanctioned post on administrative reasons, in view of their own direction which is at Annexure 4, though the petitioner was appointed for Gumla post, he was made to work for Administrative Commercial Check post and Check Centre. Vide order dated 19.11.1979 at Annexure 4, page 3738 the petitioner along with others were asked to submit their joining to the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administrative Personnel, Ranchi Division, Ranchi) and as such the petitioners acted upon, in view of the specific direction of the respondents themselves. So it cannot be said that petitioner was not appointed on the sanctioned post. The learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court as well as that of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (7) SCC 223 (State of Jharkhand and others v. Kamal Prasad and Ors.), [2010 (3) J C R 356 (Jhr)] Shankar Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. and in case of Amar Kant Rai v. State of Bihar reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265 , the learned counsel taking shelter of the aforesaid reported judgments argued that even if the initial appointment of the petitioner was not done on a sanctioned post, later on he was appointed on class III post with a fixed salary and which is still continuing and as such the initial appointment merged with the appointment on class III post which was for sanctioned post. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not working on the sanctioned post. The learned counsel submits that even if the case of Uma Devi is considered, this Hon'ble court has held that even if the initial appointment of the petitioner is illegal, similarly situated persons have been considered and for regularization the case of the petitioner cannot be left out only on the ground that his initial appointment was not on a sanctioned post and as such in view of the reported judgments and in view of the fact that the petitioner is still continuing with a fixed salary and no allegations against him are levelled in the entire service career, the petitioner is still continuing on the post since more than 37 years and as such it is a fit case for consideration of regularization even in view of the direction of this Hon'ble court. Earlier the case of the petitioner was to be considered in view of Uma Devi's case and in view of directions of the state the consideration of the respondents dated 11.2.2016 has not been done in right perceptive and is de hors the rules. Earlier the case of the petitioner was to be considered in view of Uma Devi's case and in view of directions of the state the consideration of the respondents dated 11.2.2016 has not been done in right perceptive and is de hors the rules. The learned counsel submits that consideration of the respondents are factually incorrect and as such the case of the petitioner deserves fit for regularization. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Rakhi Rani, J.C. to GA IV vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner has no right for consideration as far as regularization is concerned. The learned counsel submits that from bare perusal of the impugned order it is very clear that case of the petitioner was rightly rejected on the ground that he was not appointed on a sanctioned post. The learned counsel further argued that there was a specific direction of this Hon'ble court in W.P.(S) No. 869 of 2013 for consideration of the case in view of the Statutory Rules, 2015 dated 13.2.2015 and the case of the petitioner would only have been taken for consideration if the petitioner was working on a sanctioned post. As the notification itself is very clear on the ground that if any person who is not working on a sanctioned post is not fit for regularization even though he has rendered more than 10 years of service from the cut off date that is 2006. The learned counsel further draws the attention of the court towards paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit and submits that there is a specific averment in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit that the committee constituted to take the decision with regard to the employees who were appointed during 197981 considered the case of the petitioner and as the petitioner was not appointed against the sanctioned post and place of posting was also not mentioned in the appointment letter and there is nothing on record to show that whether the reservation policy was followed. All the ten posts against which appointment was made were not notified to the Employment Exchange and in view of that petitioner was not found eligible for regularization of his services and as such there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 6. All the ten posts against which appointment was made were not notified to the Employment Exchange and in view of that petitioner was not found eligible for regularization of his services and as such there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 6. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties this court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. The petitioner is continuously working for more than 37 years and is still on service from the date of his initial appointment which is crystal clear from Annexure 1 read with Annexure 4 that his appointment was done on a sanctioned post and he by the order of the authorities was directed to work in Ranchi for administrative reasons along with others. The petitioner was further absorbed/appointed on class III post which was a sanctioned post with a fixed salary and the petitioner is still continuing on the said post getting fixed pay scale and salary. It cannot be said that petitioner was initially not appointed on a sanctioned post, it may be that even if the petitioner was not appointed on a sanctioned post the fresh appointment on class III post which was sanctioned and petitioner is getting a regular pay scale shows that the unsanctioned post merged with the sanctioned post and petitioner is continuing on a class III Post which is a sanctioned post. It cannot be said that initial appointment of the petitioner was not sanctioned the consideration of the respondents authorities is not as per the legal requirements. 7. The consideration is not in a right perceptive as the petitioner is still working, the respondents are waiting to retire the petitioner without any order of regularization or confirmation to deprive him of his retiral benefits. In a welfare state, these steps of the respondents State are not at all appreciated. A fourth grade employee/peon appointed more than 37 years back is still continuing on the said post waiting for the orders of mighty state for confirmation/regularization and which has earlier been rejected on the ground that initial appointment of the employee was not done on a sanctioned post. A fourth grade employee/peon appointed more than 37 years back is still continuing on the said post waiting for the orders of mighty state for confirmation/regularization and which has earlier been rejected on the ground that initial appointment of the employee was not done on a sanctioned post. Even if the petitioner was appointed illegally and has continued for more than 37 years with a fixed pay scale, the respondents are bound to consider the case of employee for regularization/for retiral benefits the action of the respondent-State is illegal, arbitrary de hors the rules. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Amarkant Rai reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265 held in paragraph 13 and 14:- "In our view, the exception carved out in case of Uma Devi is applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no material placed on record by the respondents that the appellant has been lacking any qualification or bore any blemish record during his employment for over two decades. It is pertinent to note that services of similarly situated persons on daily wages for regularization viz. one Yatindra Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages on the post of clerk was regularized w.e.f 1987. The appellant although initially working against unsanctioned post, the appellant was working continuously since 3.1.2002 against sanctioned post. Since there is no material placed on record regarding the details whether any other night guard was appointed against the sanctioned post, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to award monetary benefits to be paid from 1.1.2010. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant has served the university for more than 29 years on the post of night guard and that he has served the college on daily wages, in the interest of justice, the authorities are directed to regularize the services of the appellant retrospectively w.e.f. 3.1.2002 (the date on which he rejoined the post as per the direction of the Registrar)." 8. This Hon'ble court in case of Shankar Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. This Hon'ble court in case of Shankar Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2010 (3) J C R 356 and in The State of Jharkhand v. Kamal Prasad reported in 2014 (7) SCC 223 paragraph 46 held that :- "In view of the legal principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that the decision of the High Court does not fall in either of the categories mentioned above which calls for our interference. The Division Bench of the High Court having regard to the glaring facts that the respondent employees have continuously worked in their posts for more than 29 years discharging permanent nature of duties and they have been paid their salaries and other service benefits out of the budget allocation, no objection was raised by CAG in this regard and therefore, it is not open for the appellants to contend that the law laid down in Umadevi (3) case has no application to the fact situation. The action of the appellants in terminating the services of the respondent employees who have rendered continuous service in their posts during pendency of the letters patent appeals was quashed by the High Court after it has felt that the action is not only arbitrary but shocks its conscience and therefore it has rightly exercised its discretionary power and granted the reliefs to the respondent employees which do not call for our interference. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this Court will not interfere with the opinion of the High Court and on the contrary, we will uphold the decision of the High Court both on factual and legal aspects as the same is legally correct and it has done justice to the respondent employees." 9. From the aforesaid decision also when any person has served for much longer period and specially in Class IV type of service, his service got terminated on the ground that he was initially not appointed in accordance with law. This type of allegation is thoroughly a baseless allegation. In the instant case the petitioner is continuously working on the post since 1979, more than 37 years. At this juncture, it is now, not open to the respondents to come out with a case that initial appointment of the petitioner was not on a sanctioned post. 10. This type of allegation is thoroughly a baseless allegation. In the instant case the petitioner is continuously working on the post since 1979, more than 37 years. At this juncture, it is now, not open to the respondents to come out with a case that initial appointment of the petitioner was not on a sanctioned post. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules/guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I direct respondent no. 1/2 to consider the case of petitioner for regularization afresh and pass reasoned order in accordance with law. Considering the aforesaid observations and judicial pronouncements, the decision dated 11.2.2016 (Annexure 8) is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say if the services of the petitioner is regularized, he is entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with law. 12. The writ petition stands allowed.