IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13920 of 2005 GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA @ G.K.S Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS with CWJC No.4593 of 2007 VINAY RAI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS with CWJC No.13922 of 2005 INDRA DEV PRASAD YADAV & ORS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Gautam Bose, Sr.Advocate Miss Ratna Das & Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocates ( in CWJC Nos.13920 & 13922/05 ) For the Petitioner: M/s. M.P. Dixit, N.N.Mishra and S.K.Dixit, Advocates(in CWJC No. 4593 of 2007) For the Respondents: Mr.B.N.Yadav, & Anu Singh, Advocates ---------- 4 23.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. It is categorically recorded that despite indulgence no counter affidavit on the merit of the case has been filed so far. Therefore the matters are being disposed of on the pleadings available on records. All the petitioners are aggrieved because despite they having rendered services under the respondents for a long period of time may be three decades in some cases. As would be evident from the records brought by the petitioners when it came down to the irregular appointment they have been pushed out from the zone of consideration on two grounds, one, under- age and second under- qualification. The irony of the situation is not lost on this Court - 2 - because the respondents have taken 30 years to realize that they have engaged minor persons at the initial time of their engagement or they do not have adequate qualification. But the question does arise now whether these two reasons can be held out against the petitioners when they have been working under the respondents for a long period of time may be 25 to 30 years without any objection by them on the above counts? Petitioners are only seeking regularization now. It is not a case of fresh appointment where the question of age or qualification will play any vital role. They have acquired right by virtue of the length of service under the respondents and not anything else. The Court need not record various decisions on this issue but states that least these two grounds i.e. under age and under qualification can not be held out against the petitioners after so many years of their engagement by the respondents. The reasons for refusal is not based on any logic because both the grounds of disqualification could have been passed at the time of initial engagement but the same cannot be a disqualification after so many years. In the opinion of the Court the cases of the petitioners require reconsideration by excluding these two grounds which are under- age and under- qualification for regularization of their services. These writ applications are allowed with a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases afresh in - 3 - the light of the length of services they have rendered and if they are otherwise eligible and senior in the matter. An early adjudication to the issue is expected by the Court preferably within three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)