IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5355 of 2009 Vasant Kumar, Son of Late Upendra Jha, resident of Village- Umapat Basant, P.S. Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Industry Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director Handloom and Sericulture, Department of Industry, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Assistant Director, Sericulture, Purnea. 5. The Joint Director (Technical) Handloom and Sericulture, Industry Department, Bihar, Patna. ... Respondents. ----------- 02- 30.04.2009 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.1. This writ petition is directed against the order bearing Memo no.2481, dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure-28), passed by the Government of Bihar, Directorate of Industries and Handloom Sericulture, whereby they have refused to regularise the services of the petitioner in the Bihar Government on a Class- III post. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court by preferring C.W.J.C. No.15706 of 2005 2 (Vasant Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar and others) seeking to challenge the order bearing 1792 dated 3.12.2005 (Annexure-23), whereby the services of the petitioner as a Clerk in the office at Maheshpur, Saharsa, had been dispensed with. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 24.4.2007 (Annexure-24), whereby the appropriate authorities were directed to consider his case for regularisation in accordance with the following judgments: (i) (2006)4) S.C.C. 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) and others); (ii) 2006 (3) P.L.J.R. 342 (Ram Tapeshwar Sah and others vs. The State of Bihar and others). 3. It appears that the respondent authorities considered the petitioner’s case and have rejected his case for regularisation by the impugned order. It is, inter alia, stated as follows: “lHkh rF;ksa ij iw.kZ fopkjksijkar lfefr bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaph fd Jh dqekj dh rnFkZ fu;qfDr gsrq tks izko/kku cuk;s x;s Fks flQZ mldh gh vogsyuk ugha dh x;h cfYd mu ifj~i=ksa dh Hkh vuns[kh dh x;h ftuds n~okjk bl rjg dh rnFkZ fu;qfDr;ka ugh djus dk vkns’k fn;k x;k@“ 3 It is thus evident that the petitioner’s initial appointment was illegal and in fact void ab-initio. We agree with the impugned order that the petitioner’s case for regularisation does not measure up to the requirement laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others (Supra). 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/