IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3353 of 2010 1. SADANAND PATHAK S/O LATE JIVANAND PATHAK R/O MOH.- PURANIGANJ, P.O. & P.S.- MUNGER, DISTT.- MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM DISTRICT REGISTRAR DEPTT. OF REGISTRATION, MUNGER, DISTT.- MUNGER 3. THE DISTRICT ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR MUNGER, DISTT.- MUNGER ----------- 2/ 13/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the respondents on 8.9.2009. The same is not available on record. The Court therefore requested the learned counsel for the State to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceedings on that ground. The office is directed to retain a Xerox copy of the same. The petitioner was employed as an Additional Clerk in the Sub-registry, Munger. Unfortunately, he got embroiled in a criminal prosecution with regard to discharge of his duties. A conviction by the trial court was followed by clean acquittal given by the appellate court. He seeks the relief of reinstatement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those appointed as Additional Clerks with him or after him have been inducted into the regular - 2 - establishment as L.D.C. Learned counsel for the State submits from Annexure-E to the counter affidavit dated 23.10.2009 that by Finance Department Resolution No.2378 dated 22.7.2003 the post of Additional Clerks had been abolished. Instruction No.26 appended in its extract as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit makes it apparent that those employed as Additional Clerks are not part of the permanent establishment. They are appointed for specified duration in the exigency of the service only. Once a policy decision has been taken with regard to such persons, this Court finds it difficult to grant any relief to the petitioner. Those who may have been absorbed in the permanent establishment appointed simultaneous or after the petitioner form one class and the petitioner who was kept away by reason of his criminal conviction, forms a separate class. Intervening developments of a ban on Additional Clerks’ appointment separates him from the other class. This Court does not find it possible to grant any positive relief to the petitioner. If he represents that is a matter to be appropriately considered by the respondents in accordance with law, subject to availability of vacancies and job requirements in - 3 - accordance with Article-14 of the Constitution of India. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)