IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7712 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Amarnath Mishra S/O Late Devanath Mishra R/O Raj Quarter, Shyam Bagh, P.S.- University, Town And District- Darbhanga 2. Mahesh Jha S/O Ramdev Jha R/O Mohalla- Naya Balbhadrapur, P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.- Darbhanga 3. Pratap Narayan Thakur S/O Late Arjun Thakur R/O Mohalla- Suratganj, Near Mahadev Mandir, P.S. And Distt.- Madhubani .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Science And Technology, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Science And Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Darbhanga .... .... Respondents ====================================================== 4 29-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are stated to have been appointed as part time lecturers on sanctioned vacant posts of Assistant Professors on 11.11.1995 and 31.10.1998 by the Principal of the Government Polytechnic, Darbhanga. Their letters of appointment state that they were being appointed against vacant posts till regular appointment were not made. They came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 5418 of 2000 with a claim for regularization. It come to be disposed on 07.02.2007 with a batch of analogous writ applications led by C.W.J.C. No. 1156 of 2001 to consider individual cases for 2 regularization in accordance with the law laid down in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi). Their claims have been rejected by the order dated 20.11.2008 holding that though they hold the qualification for the post, the appointment was against a sanctioned vacant post, but they did not fulfill the condition of 10 years of continuance of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail that order on the grounds inter alia that the deliberations were not done by the three members of the Committee and failure to complete 240 days of continuous service was an irrelevant issue. The respondents have denied the claim suggesting that petitioner no. 1 was no more in service after 19th of March, 1999. There is no statement with regard to the status of petitioner no. 2. Counsel for the petitioner disputes the same. The respondents have also relied upon an order of the Supreme Court in a similar matter, dated 19.02.1996 observing that no directions for regularization on the post of lecturer can be issued but they may apply for fresh selection when issues of age relaxation and past work experience as lecturers are expected to be appropriately kept in mind. Counsel for the parties are not at issue that till date no regular appointment has been made on the post of lecturer against which the petitioners were appointed. The claim for regularization 3 is one aspect of the matter for which the Court does not uphold the claim of the petitioners. If they are still in service as part time lecturers, their rights under the conditions incorporated in the letter of appointment is an entirely different matter. Both can stand on their own strength. But there can be no fetters on the powers of the respondents with regard to them disciplinary or otherwise in that event. The Court shall dispose the matter in terms of the letters of appointments. It is unfortunate that the respondents have been continuing with ad hocism since 1995-98 which not only creates uncertainty but also generates litigations apart from an element of uncertainty in the institution itself affecting not only the appointee but also academics in general. It is in the interest of the institution that it is brought to an early end. Educated persons holding Professional Qualification as lectures cannot be at par on issues with lesser qualified persons. The Court only expects that the respondents shall act prudently, if the petitioners are still in service as part time lecturers. The writ petition is disposed in terms of their letters of appointment. It is accordingly ordered. Bhardwaj/- (Navin Sinha, J)