IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.289 of 2006 MADAN MOHAN SHARMA,SON OF LATE AWADH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHAWANIA TOLA, P.S. MANER, DISTRICT- PATNA AND AT PRESENT POSTED AS DAILY WAGES ASSISTANT OF VANIJYA MAHAVIDYALAYA, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA. .......PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURSES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, DISTRICT- PATNA. 5. THE REGISTRAR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, DISTRICT- PATNA. 6. PRINCIPAL, VANIJYA MAHAVIDYALAYA, PATNA UNIVERSITY, DISTRICT- PATNA. 7. SRI KRISHNA RAI, S/O NOT KNOWN, PATNA COLLEGE, PATNA. 8. SRI LALIT KUAMR SINHA. 9. SRI SHYAM SUNDER PRASAD. 10.SRI ANUJ KUMAR. 11.SRI ASGAR ALI. 12.SRI KAUSAL PRASAD. PETITIONER NOS. 8 TO 12 S/O NOT KNOWN. 13.SRI MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF NOTE KNOWN, ALL 8 TO 13 ROUTINE CLERK MAIN OFFICE, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA. .....RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. For the Patna University:- Mr. Ajay Kumar,Adv. For the State:- Aditya Nath Pandey, AC to GA 5. 3 05.05.2011 Petitioner was appointed on daily wages on 22.09.1986 in the College of Commerce, Patna University, which is constituent unit of the Patna University. Petitioner's grievance is that while his juniors have been regularized, who were similarly appointed, petitioner has been left out. By Annexure 2 of the petitioner, it is pointed out that several persons who were appointed much after petitioner 2 were regularized in 1999 itself. By Annexure 3 he shows that several who were working in College of Commerce including one of his junior Krishna Rai, who was appointed on 11.01.1986 was regularized with effect from 23.01.2004, but he has been left out. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that so far as Annexure 2 is concerned all those persons were appointed on daily wages in the University Office as against sanctioned post. Annexure 2 is only in relation to those employees who were regularized. So far as post in college on which petitioner was appointed not being available, he could not be regularized then. State Government took a decision to regularize all persons who were appointed in the University in daily wages prior to May, 1986. Petitioner was appointed in September, 1986. He was accordingly not regularized. It was subsequently, the decision of the State to regularize all daily wages employees who were appointed as such up to 1991. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that in this, petitioner's case is being considered. The petitioner, in his rejoinder, has stated that during pendency of the writ petition, with effect from 04.04.2006, he has been regularized. However, petitioner points out that one of the persons who were regularized in Annexure 3 is Krishna Rai, who was appointed on 11.10.1986. University's stand is that as per records available, he was appointed on 11.01.1986. 3 Be that as it may, that leads to nowhere so far as petitioner is concerned. Krishna Rai was wrongly regularized in second phase but that does not help the case of the petitioner as petitioner could not have been regularised then. Petitioner having been regularized subsequently, in my view, no further relief is available to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. Bhardwaj/- ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)