IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.474 of 2005 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 12538/2001) Dr.Dhirendra Kumar Das Arbind, son of Shri Kameshwar Lal Das, resident of Birauli, P.S.-Pusa, District –Samastipur. .... Appellant. Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ……. Respondent. ---------------------------------- 6 12.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. None is present on behalf of the respondent Institute. The appeal arises out of the order of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No.12538 of 2001 dated14.03.2005. The appellant is the petitioner who sought for quashing Annexure-18 dated 19.02.2001. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that he got declaration of the appellant’s employment in the respondent Institute. Since the appellant was appointed on the basis of advertisement issued by the Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, his services should be treated in the category of Bihar Education Service Class-II as that of a government employee. However, learned Single Judge having heard bothsides while considering the aforesaid has observed that so far as the pay scale and the service conditions both of the petitioner and their like are concerned, their service conditions are the same/at par with the employees of the Bihar Education Service Class-II. The learned Single Judge further also observed that the appellant’s pay scale, the service 2 condition and the grade would be at par with those of Bihar Education Service Class-II but he would not be a Government employee as he was employee of an autonomous institution. The contention sought to be raised by the learned Senior counsel that the appellant should be treated as Government employee for the reasons that the appellant was appointed on the sanctioned vacant post by the Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar and, hence, he should be treated as Government employee for the purpose of his service condition. We had also occasion to see the governmental order dated 21.7.1977 contained in Annexure-9 in persuasion of which the said post was advertised for the Institute and we are not in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant should be treated as Government employee for all purposes. In view of the fact that the learned Single Judge has considered the entire matters on merit and has referred the decisions of this Court while considering the case of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the Judgment needs no interference. Accordingly, L.P.A. stands dismissed. AnilKrSinha Fahad (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)