IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13302 of 2007 Ramesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Kusheshwar Pd. Singh, resident of village Bharouli (Dhakjari), P.O. Bharouli, P.S. Sonbarsa Kachheri, District Saharsa … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna 2. District Magistrate cum Collector, Saharsa 3. Civil Surgeon Saharsa, District Saharsa 4. I/C Medical Officer, Saharsa Sadar (Kahara), District Saharsa … Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 18.11.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. From a reading of the writ application it would appear that the petitioner has two fold grievance, namely, that his order of termination dated 1.4.2002 on the post of Health Guide should be quashed and consequently the respondents should be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner in view of the fact that he was continuing on the post of Health Guide since 1st January, 1984. Learned counsel for the State in this regard by placing reliance on the stand taken in the counter affidavit would submit that the petitioner has a misconceived notion either with regard to termination of his service or his being regularized on the post of Health Guide. In this regard it has been submitted that the concept of Health Guide was under the Scheme sanctioned by the Government of India in which a person was supposed to render service for 2-3 hours a day and for which an honorarium of Rs. 50/- per month was being paid. Counsel explains that this Scheme being also temporary in nature was abolished and as such, all the 2 persons engaged as Health Guide were removed in absence of budgetary allocation or continuation of the Scheme. Once this fact would become clear that the petitioner was never appointed on regular basis in a full time employment of the State there can be no direction for regularizing the services of such person. This Court would also not find any merit in the stand taken by the petitioner in the writ application that his services were terminated. The closure of the Scheme and disengagement of the person associated with the Scheme cannot be equated with termination of service. It has to be noted that the facts clearly asserted in this regard in the counter affidavit having been served on the counsel for the petitioner on 29.1.2008 have got no response from the petitioner by way of any rejoinder affidavit and as such, all the facts mentioned in the counter affidavit would be deemed to have been admitted by the petitioner. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/