IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17021 of 2008 DEVENDRA RAY, S/O SRI KAPILDEO RAY, R/O VILLAGE+P.O.-SINGHARA, P.S.-MAHUA, DISTRICT- VAISHALI, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER IN HISTORY, B.R.B. COLLEGE, SAMASTIPUR. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 3. THE REGISTRAR, L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 4. THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR, RAJ BHAWAN, PATNA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 16.11.2010 In this writ application petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent University to consider his case for regularization. However, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dr.Shiv Narayan Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (2001 (2) PLJR 817) learned counsel for the petitioner fairly accepts that now the regularization statutes can not come to any aid of the petitioner. However, he submits that the case of the petitioner may be considered by the University in terms of paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006 (2) PLJR (SC) 363. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the said observations of the Constitution Bench the University has to first examine whether the petitioner’s appointment was illegal or irregular and 2 then only any decision can be taken. This is not being disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the University authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for his regularization in term of said paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment. The decision must be taken by the respondents either way in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not applied its mind to the merits of the claim of the petitioner which has to be considered by the University authorities. It goes without saying that if the petitioner’s case passes the test laid down by the Constitution Bench and is found valid, consequential orders has to be passed accordingly. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)