IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4253 of 2006 RABINDRA KUMAR SINHA SON OF ABADH BEHARI PRASAD RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MARANPUR, P.S. CHAND CHAURA, DISTRICT GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS. 2. THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, FINANCE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 3 29/10/2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, the Court fails to understand the ground on which the petitioner can claim regularization from a particular date. Order of regularization of the petitioner has been considered by the respondent authorities in light of the judicial order passed in this regard in the earlier writ application. Since the appointment of the petitioner has come to be made on 6.09.2005 after the said decision as well as rejection of the contempt application filed by the petitioner, no special ground is made out for pushing back the date of appointment of the petitioner only because a recommendation was made by the Collector at one stage to consider his case from the date of order - 2 - passed by the High Court. On a reading of the order of the High Court, there is nothing to indicate that the Court had given any clear indication that regularization of the petitioner on the post would relate back to the initial engagement. Only thing which the Court held was that the earlier termination was held to be bad and his claim had to be considered in light of the government resolution dated 18.6.1992. Petitioner should be more than happy to have got public employment under the State by virtue of the judicial order. His date of appointment cannot be modified under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that too when the Court has no law to support such a prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. This writ application is thus dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)