IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4650 of 2008 Hira Lal @ Heera Lal Yadav, son of Shri Modan Yadav, resident of Village Bishunpur Giccho, Police Station Lodipur, District Bhagalpur………………………………….………………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University through its Registrar. 3. The Principal, Marwari College, Bhagalpur. 4. The Head of the Department, Hindi Tilka Manjhi University, Bhagalpur. 5. The Finance Controller, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University………………………..Respondents. ----------- For Petitioner: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate. For University: Mr. A.K. Keshari, Advocate. For State: Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, A.C. to S.C. III 2 14.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner claims to have been appointed in 1990 against a sanctioned vacant post of Class IV by the authorities of Marwari College, Bhagalpur after due advertisement and interview. A copy of the advertisement is annexed as Annexure-1. It is submitted that petitioner has continued in the College since then. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a report of an authority of the College as contained in Annexure-9 which 2 gives details of his appointment and continuance. However, when the petitioner was not regularized, he moved this Court through CWJC No. 5731 of 2006 which was disposed of, vide order dated 07.03.2007, as contained in Annexure-10. This Court gave liberty to the petitioner to file a representation and directed the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider the same and dispose it of by a reasoned order. The said representation has been disposed of by the Vice Chancellor, vide order dated 19.05.2007, as contained in Annexure-12. This order is under challenge in this writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before disposing of the representation of the petitioner, Vice Chancellor had not called for the records of the College pertaining to the petitioner and had not called for any report as to under what circumstances petitioner was appointed and was allowed to continue. He submits that only on the basis that no records were available pertaining to appointment of the 3 petitioner in the University, Vice Chancellor came to the conclusion that his appointment was not against vacant sanctioned post and was illegal. From the impugned order of the Vice Chancellor it appears that the Vice Chancellor found that petitioner had not produced any paper to show that he was engaged against a sanctioned vacant post etc. Petitioner claims to be continuing in the College till now. The documents annexed with the writ application, prima facie, show that there was some advertisement by the College for appointment against different posts of Class III and Class IV. If that was not correct and incumbents were appointed in the College pursuant to that advertisement, all of them could have met the same fate. However, any case of regularisation can now be considered in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), reported in 2006 (2) PLJR 363 (SC) and observations 4 made in paragraph 44 thereof. Hence, it is appropriate that the case of the petitioner should be reconsidered by the University, in the light of parameters laid down by the Constitution Bench. Therefore, this application is allowed and the impugned order of the Vice Chancellor as contained in Annexure-12 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the present Vice-Chancellor of the University, who shall reconsider the case of the petitioner, in the light of the observations of the Constitution Bench in the said judgment and as per parameters laid down therein for regularisation of an employee who was working under any Government or its instrumentality or institution for more than ten years. It is made clear that before coming to any conclusion in this respect, Vice- Chancellor shall hold an enquiry with regard to appointment or continuance of the petitioner from the original records of the College itself and shall also clearly come to the conclusion as to whether appointment of the petitioner was 5 illegal or irregular. It goes without saying that if he finds that appointment of the petitioner is only irregular in terms of the Constitution Bench, petitioner shall be regularized in view of the observations of the Constitution Bench. In case appointment of the petitioner is found illegal, the Vice Chancellor shall give clear finding on this score. Such consideration shall be made by the Vice Chancellor preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)