IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1387 of 1998 DASHRATH SAH, son of Ram Bahadur Sah, resident of village – Mahaddipur, Police Station – Pashnaha, District – Khagaria. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Secretary- cum- Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director Revenue (Administration), Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. Special Officer-cum-Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Purnea. ----------- For the petitioner: Mrs. M Chatterjee. For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to AAG – 9. ------- 09. 21.9.2010 Petitioner, a Seasonal Tax Collector, wanted absorption in the regular establishment of the Irrigation Department. Since the respondents were not forthcoming on the claim of the petitioner, he had to file the present writ application seeking a direction for such absorption. Many a things have been stated in the writ application including the point of discrimination. But all the aspects have lost their meaning because time and events have overtaken the claim of the petitioner in the meantime and to that extent the petitioner seems to have lost his right or claim in the changed circumstance. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents duly sworn by the Under Secretary of the Department of Water Resources where a clear statement has been made in para 4 that the State Government has as a matter of policy done away with the engagement of seasonal tax collectors and there are no more engagements of seasonal tax collectors by the department after the year 2 1997-1998. Those who were in the permanent establishment have now been accommodated on some other posts in the wing of the department and there is no occasion now to regularize the services of the petitioner as a seasonal tax collector whatever be the length or period of service he may have rendered under the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the claim of the petitioner must be looked at from the point of view when the issue was raised and the petitioner’s claim ought to be adjudicated in that background. This Court has certain reservation in taking such a wide view because availability of the post is a must before any direction for consideration of regularization can be given. It is the length of service and experience gained by the petitioner of the post or the nature of the work, which will entitle him for any benefit. That cannot be utilized for accommodating the petitioner on any post only because he had served the organization for a long period of time and some others who were permanent employees have been accommodated elsewhere. It may be a hard case of the petitioner but the events being what they are, the Court cannot pass any direction in favour of the petitioner in view of the changed circumstance. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)