IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.857 of 2009 ====================================================== Radha Raman Jha, Son of Shri Ram Jha, resident of village Tumaul, Police Station – Manigachhi, District – Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, through its Registrar, Kameshwar Nagar Darbhanga. 4. The Vice-Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. 5. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha Mr. Ajit Ranjan Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc9) Mr. T.N.Maitin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) 06/ 23-09-2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner, L.N. Mithila University and the State. This is the second round litigation at the instance of the petitioner almost for similar relief. Earlier also he had come before this Court for quashing of order dated 12.2.2005 passed by the Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Routine Clerk had been rejected on the ground that his claim has already been Patna High Court CWJC No.857 of 2009 (6) dt.23-09-2011 2 / 3 2 considered by the syndicate and rejected, as such he cannot be regularized against such post. The writ application filed by the petitioner along with analogous matters was disposed of, directing the Vice-Chancellor of the University for constituting a Three Men Committee. The Three Men Committee had to examine individual cases in the light of para 53 of the judgment of Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi. Obviously the Committee had to examine whether the appointment of the concerned employee was illegal, irregular or forged. In case, irregular appointment employee continuing on the post for more than ten years, they are entitled for being regularized. In case of other two categories the claim for absorption/regularization could have been rejected. The impugned order, whereby petitioner’s claim for regularization has been rejected, do not indicate that in which category the appointment of the petitioner was found. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of University is also completely silent. There is no statement that in the enquiry report submitted by the Three Men Committee, petitioner’s appointment was put in which category and what was the reason for holding such an opinion. I find that there is no proper consideration of Patna High Court CWJC No.857 of 2009 (6) dt.23-09-2011 3 / 3 3 petitioner’s claim for regularization as per the direction of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order contained in Annexure- 1 dated 25.11.2007 issued under the signature of Registrar, L.N. Mithila University in letter No. VCR-1735B/07 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Vice-Chancellor of L.N. Mithila University for fresh consideration of petitioner’s claim in the light of the direction/observation of the High Court. The consideration of petitioner’s appointment must be done and final report submitted in this regard, within two months from the date of production/communication of this order. Final order, should be passed by the authorities of the University, only after submission of report by the Three Men Committee. With this direction and observation, this application is allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J)