JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. 1. Since the consistency is the hallmark of justice, the learned single Judge has made no mistake of legal kind by being consistent in his view, which was based on previous adjudications and decisions identical on the issue. The writ application stood disposed of with the observation that if somebody was made to work on the post of a Tax Collector on the basis of decisions and orders passed by the authorities of the Patna Municipal Corporation, then they had a right to be either regularized or paid the benefit of the post of Tax Collector. There were two writ petitioners, who had approached the High Court for similar kind of relief, therefore, they were both clubbed together and disposed of together. 2. On being questioned closely, the counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation has no explanation as to why no legal battle was carried out beyond the decision which were rendered as far back as in the year 2002 and 2004, one of such decision has also been reported, which was the case of Surya Kant Jha vs. The Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation and others, reported in 2004 (1) PLJR 366, and yet another decision reported in the case of Sitaram Choudhary vs. Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna and others, reported in 2004 (4) PLJR 840. 3. The Court would not like to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge since his decision is in conformity with the judicial view taken in the cases referred above, besides the cases which have also been noticed in the impugned order. 4. Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.