IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10152 of 2008 1. Nand Kishor Son of Late Indradeo Singh, 2. Awadhesh Ram Son of Late Ram Lalit Ram. 3. Ram Narayan Ram, Son of Late Suryadeo Ram. All are residents of Village Sarauti, Post Office Rampur Chauram, Police Station Arwal, District Jehanabad and at present all are working as Library Assistant, Safaikar and Ward Servant respectively, in Shree Ram Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Sarauti, Post Office Rampur Chauram, Police Station and District Arwal, Jehanabad……………………………………………………………….….Petitioners Versus 1. Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar Darbhanga, District Darbhanga through its Registrar. 2. Vice-Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. 3. Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. 4. Governing Body, Shree Ram Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Sarauti, Post Office Rampur Chauram, Arwal, District Arwal (Jehanabad) through its Secretary. 5. The State of Bihar through Secretary (Higher Education) Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna………………………..Respondents --------------------------------- 3 04.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioners claim to have been appointed in Shri Ram Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as, „the College‟) sometime in 1979 and 1981. They claim that they have continued in the College on ad hoc basis/daily wages till now and their services at one time were provisionally 2 approved and ad hoc payments were made to them. They have produced certificates of the Principal of the College, annexed as Annexure-10 series dated 17.07.2006, which shows that they are still continuing in the service of the College. In view of the said certificates of the Principal, petitioners have a right to be considered for regularisation in terms of paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006(2) PLJR 363 (SC). The direction contained in paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Uma Devi (3) (supra) has further been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari reported in 2010 (9) Supreme Court Cases 247 = AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2587. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment in the case of M.L. Kesari (supra), the Apex Court has held as follows: “…….The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.04.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the 3 requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.” There is nothing on record to show that petitioners‟ services were either terminated before 10.04.2006 or their cases have been considered by the University as one time measure in the light of the observations of the Constitution Bench in the said paragraph and within the parameters laid down therein and final orders have been passed. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the University to consider the cases of petitioners as one time measure for their regularisation or otherwise in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in the said paragraph and within the parameters laid down therein positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. The University in the process shall allow petitioners to file 4 representation with supporting documents in support of their claim for regularisation and, if necessary, allow them to be heard personally in the matter. For expeditious consideration of their cases, petitioners, if so advised, may file representation before the Vice-Chancellor along with a copy of this order. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)