IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13121 of 2008 Bina Devi, Wife of Kamlesh Thakur, R/o Village Sant Nagar, Ward No.15, Gangjala, P.S. Saharsa (Town), Dist. Saharsa. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Saharsa, Dist. Saharsa. 5. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa, Dist. Saharsa. 6. District Education Officer, Saharsa, Dist. Saharsa. 7. Head Master of Government Girl’s High School, Poorab Bazar, Saharsa, Dist. Saharsa. -------- Respondents ----------- 6 05.12.2011 Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(i) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent District Magistrate to include the name of petitioner in the panel prepared for the appointment of Class-IVth employees of the Saharsa district. (ii) To issue a further writ order or direction commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioner on permanent basis on any Class-IVth Post (including „DAI‟) forthwith considering the long services rendered by the petitioner in Government Girl‟s High School Poorab Bazar, Saharsa (herein after referred as to 2 School). (iii) This Hon‟ble Court may adjudicate and hold that in view of long working of the petitioner she is entitled to get the employment/regularization of class IVth post and no other person can be allowed to work on temporary basis in place of petitioner. (iv) To award the cost of litigation. (v) To award any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Mr. Singh, while pressing for the aforementioned relief, has submitted that the petitioner had worked as a Class-IV employee in the school, in question, under the order of the Headmaster for a period of over eight years and that when she was also not paid any amount by way of remuneration for her casual engagement, her case at least had to be considered for her regular appointment. Expanding the submission, Mr. Singh has submitted that the State Government cannot take Begar or any person which would be violative of constitutional guarantee under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that when the persons similarly situated are being usually taken in 3 the panel by the Collector of the district and their names are also being recommended in terms of the Government resolution contained in Personnel Department Letter No. 16441 dated 3.12.1980, the petitioner would be entitled for her empanelment in the Collector’s panel as also being recommended for appointment on Class-IV post on the strength of her working experience. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner cannot stake claim of regularization, inasmuch as, she was never appointed in the service of the State by a competent Authority. He has further explained that the Headmaster of the school is not authorized to make appointment on casual basis and, therefore, such honorary engagement of the petitioner by the Headmaster would not cloth any right to the petitioner. He has also submitted that a procedure has been prescribed for preparation of district panel by the Collector and the petitioner, therefore, can only apply as and when vacancies are advertised on Class-IV post by the Collector, whereafter, her case would 4 also be considered. In the considered opinion of this Court, no direction can be issued to the District Magistrate/Collector of Saharsa district for straightway including the name of the petitioner in the district panel, inasmuch as, the petitioner has never filed her application in response to the advertisement issued by the Collector of Saharsa district and therefore, in future if applications are invited by the Collector of Saharsa district for making panel for appointment on Class-IV post and if the petitioner fulfills the terms and conditions of such advertisement and qualifies for the same, her case will also be considered for empanelment in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner would exceed the maximum age of entry in Government service, she may be given relaxation because of the admitted fact that the petitioner was working in a Government institution even under the order of an incompetent authority. As far as the relief of regularization is concerned, once the petitioner is out of 5 service as is admitted by Mr. Singh, there would be no question of regularizing her service specially in view of the fact that her appointment also was not made in a prescribed manner nor by the competent authority. Such a person infact is not entitled for regularization of service as was held in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi(3) & Ors. reported in 2006(4)SCC 1. That being so, this writ application, so far it relates to regularization of service, must fail but, as with regard to her empanelment for appointment on Class-IV post in future either in Education Department or any other Department in terms of the circular of the State Government contained in letter no. 16441 dated 3.12.1980, must be considered strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)