IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16550 of 2007 AKLESH KUMAR, son of Sri Aditiya Gope, resident of Puraibagh, Police Station Barh, Post Office Agwanpur, District- Patna.... Petitioner. Versus 1. THE RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVersity, Pusa, Bihar, through the Registrar. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, the Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa. 3. The Training Organizer Krishi Vibyan Kendra Agwanpur, Barh Patna of the Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director General Indian Council of Agriculture Research New Delhi. 5. Director (Extension) Rajendra Agriculture University Pusa, Samastipur. 6. The State of Bihar, through Secretary, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna. ... Respondents. ----------- 2. 10.11.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the University as with regard to the following prayer .. “1. That in this writ application the petitioner prays that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 5, particularly the respondent no. 3 to allow the petitioner to work as Night Watchman at Krishri Vigyan Kendra, on which post the petitioner has been continuously working since April, 1995.” this much becomes clear that a purely contractual and casual engagement of the petitioner on the post of Night Guard would not have conferred him any right for being absorbed in the services of the University. The petitioner at best on the basis of his such working on casual/contractual basis could have claimed consideration 2 of his case as and when the vacancies of the Night Guard was to be filled up on regular basis wherein his candidature could be considered with other candidates from open market even by allowing him certain relaxation of age at least for the period in which the work was taken from him by the authority of University on casual/contractual basis. The prayer of regularization of service the petitioner therefore as specifically prayed in this writ application seems to be wholly misconceived specially when this Court has also been informed that the petitioner‟s such casual/contractual engagement had also come to an end in the year 2007 well before filing of this writ application. As the petitioner has also not made out any case of non- adherence to the principle of „last come first go‟ in the case of temporary appointment/engagement, this Court would find it difficult to allow the prayer of the petitioner made in this writ application. The further claim of the petitioner as orally pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that after disengagement of the petitioner from the post of Night Guard in the year 2007, respondent no. 3 had engaged his 3 own relative as Night Guard on similar casual/contractual basis can also not be adjudicated in absence of any pleading to this effect in this writ application and therefore this Court is not in a position to pass any firm order as with regard to the alleged violation of principle of „last come first go‟. It however goes without saying that if the University would make regular appointment on the post of Night Guard, the case and claim of the petitioner will also be considered with other candidates provided that he would fulfil the eligibility criteria in all other respects. The respondents, however, would be under obligation to condone the requirement of age prescribed for such regular appointment in case the petitioner has crossed the maximum age limit at least for the period he had continued to work for certain stretch of period on contract/casual basis. The petitioner thus would be entitled for condonation of age limit to the extent the work was taken from him in course of his engagement on casual / contractual basis. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the payment of daily wages in 4 course of such contractual / casual appointment of the petitioner has also not been made. The counsel for the University would however very fairly submit that though as per his instruction such admissible payment for the period of working of the petitioner has already been made but he has assured petitioner if it is found that the petitioner‟s payment of wages for certain period during his contractual / casual engagement has not been made, the same would be made to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of filing of representation by the petitioner. This Court therefore would give liberty to the petitioner to file a compact representation containing both the grievances with regard to the engagement of some relative of respondent no. 3 as also non-payment of his wages for certain stretch of period in which he had worked on casual/contractual. The Vice-Chancellor of the University will find out as to whether the petitioner was deprived of continuing in service on account of illegal engagement of respondent no. 3 as also the petitioner was deprived of payment of his admitted work done and he would be also under obligation to pass a reasoned order as 5 with regard to the aforesaid two grievances of the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)