IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13380 of 2009 MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 14.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner came to this Court seeking regularization in C.W.J.C. No. 14267 of 2005. It was disposed on 13.11.2006 along with several analogous cases without going into the facts of an individual case. The matter was referred for consideration to a three man committee. The prayer for regularization has been rejected by an order dated 6.5.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the impugned order it is apparent that the issue of regularization had to be decided by a three man committee in terms of the order of this Court. The impugned order is not of the three men committee, but by one individual member of the committee. The order of this Court therefore has not been complied with and therefore there has been no consideration. The order therefore be set aside and the matter should be remanded. It has been noticed above that C.W.J.C. No. 14267 of 2005 preferred by the petitioner came to be disposed in a batch of analogous cases without going into the individual facts of the case. 2 In the present writ petition, it is the specific case of the petitioner in Paragraph-5 that he was a seasonal employee. That itself denotes the absence of a regular engagement in any capacity. He has not even placed his appointment letter on record to prima facie demonstrate even such seasonal employment was in consonance with limitation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is no material on record of any policy decision, if any, for regularization of seasonal workers if that be permissible in law. The analogy applied for vitiating orders passed in violation of statutory direction for the Constitution of statutory committees cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case. What this Court had essentially directed was a consideration for regularization. That has been done and a reasoned order passed which further states that even during the enquiry he did not produce any appointment letter. This Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, on facts as discussed above is not satisfied that the petitioner has even made out a case for remand in terms of the submissions made with regard to the impugned order dated 6.5.2008. The writ application stands dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)