IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11945 of 2009 DR.SUNIT KUMAR MISHRA, Son of Late Pandit Radha Mohan Mishra, resident of Mohalla – Shivpuri, P.O. and P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna -23, District – Patna. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Magadh University, Body Gaya, District – Gaya through its Registrar. 4. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District – Gaya. 5. The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District – Gaya. 6. The Principal, Ganga Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Lohia Nagar, Kankanbagh, Patna – 20. ….. Respondents. ----------- 02/ 16.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsels appearing for the Magadh University and State. Petitioner has filed his application for a direction to the authorities of Magadh University to absorb him against a vacant post of Lecturer in the Department of Economics in Ganga Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Kankarbagh, Patna. For similar relief petitioner had come earlier before this Court by way of filing writ application and had filed C.W.J.C. No. 229 of 1995 as the petitioner’s initial appointment itself, in dispute. Petitioner’s name is Sunit Kumar Mishra and there was no Sunit Kumar Mishra appointed on the post of Lecturer. Since the dispute was regarding the petitioner’s appointment and working as teacher in the College, as such the writ application was - 2 - disposed of with a direction to the University and its authorities to conduct an enquiry in the matters as to whether the petitioner was appointed after due advertisement in the College or not and whether or not he is still continuing in the College. It was further directed that if it is found, that petitioner was appointed after due advertisement against a sanctioned post or deemed sanctioned post and is continuing in the service of the College, then the respondents State will take appropriate step for regularization of his service, if permissible under the statue. Subsequently petitioner filed Review application stating that in paragraphs 30 – 31 to the writ application he has disclosed regarding his joining in another service in the year, 1992 itself. The Review application was disposed of giving option to the petitioner that he can bring the aforesaid fact to the notice of the University and it was kept open for the University to decide the case of the petitioner in the changed circumstances. It seems that in 2005 the petitioner filed representation before the University in this regard. However, it is an admitted fact that in the year, 1992 itself the petitioner had joined - 3 - another service and still continuing on that post. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since his case was under consideration for regularization before the University and till date it has not been decided, as such the matter is still open and his case should be considered by the University for regularization and absorption. I find that this submission peculiar, for the reason that initial appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer itself was under question. In the first writ application it seems that counsel appearing for the petitioner, during his argument before the Court, did not drew attention of the Court towards this fact that petitioner has already joined another service. This is the reason that in the order this fact has not been mentioned and it has been stated that petitioner clarifies that he is still continuing on the post. Later on, by way of filing Review application, petitioner tried to change the tenor of the order, but it was not done and option was given to the University to consider it. A person, who had joined another service without - 4 - taking permission of the earlier employer, cannot claim any right on the post which he claimed to be working earlier. I do not find that petitioner has been left with any claim or right for being considered for regularization/ absorption on the post. In the eyes of law, he is not continuing on the post since 1992. In the given circumstance, this application is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)