IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4352 of 2009 Binod Jha, S/o Late Chandra Kant Jha, resident of Mohalla- L.N.M.U. Campus, Police Station- L.N.M. University (Sadar), District- Darbhanga. ….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. 4. The Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. ..Respondents. with CWJC No.4171 of 2009 Mohan Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Kumar Kant Mishra, Resident of village- Chataria, Police Station- Mabbi (O.P), District- Darbhanga. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. 4. The Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the University: Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Advocate. For the State: G.A.-4 ----------- 09 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the University. Prayer of the petitioners in both the writ applications is for quashing the order dated 25.11.2007 passed by the Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga, whereby petitioners’ name for regularization of their service has been rejected. The rejection order has been passed in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (supra). It has been stated 2 in the impugned order that after hearing the individual cases the Committee came to the conclusion which is as follows: “After hearing the individual cases the committee is of the opinion that the claim of appointment of the individual claimants are not in consonance with the recruitment rules as laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (supra). Hence, the process of appointment can not be treated as regular and legal. As such, the cases are observed as either irregularly or illegally made without observing the recruitment rules.” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the general and common order has been passed by the Registrar, in all such cases, including the case of petitioners, while rejecting their claim for regularization, without considering that petitioners were appointed on daily wages in the year 1985 by the Registrar of the University and continuously worked. Their claim for regularization had been placed before each committee constituted for the purposes of regularization. Their cases are similarly to those 196 daily wagers, who have been regularized and whose regularization has been approved by 3 the State Government. Subsequently, the sub-committee constituted for examining the left over cases of such candidates, whose claim for regularization had erroneously not been approved, had also made a recommendation that petitioners’ case was fit for regularization, but was left erroneously. In the facts and circumstances, findings recorded in the impugned order, only indicates that petitioners’ individual cases had not been considered by the Registrar, as well as the committee constituted for regularization. It has also been submitted by the petitioner, those daily wagers who started working much later than the petitioners, have been regularized among 196 daily wagers. No reason has been assigned by respondents, as to why petitioners’ case was found inferior to the case of those regularized, specially when juniors to the petitioners, who started working later on as daily wagers, have also been regularized. I find that it is a fit case, which needs reconsideration by the committee constituted by the University for the purposes of regularization. The Members of the committee are directed to reconsider case of these two petitioners, considering their seniority and this fact that they were appointed by the Registrar of the University as a daily wagers. Right from the date of their initial appointment, they have been paid their salary regularly. The committee will consider the case of the petitioners without any delay within a period not later than three 4 months from the date of receipt/production of the order and will pass a reasoned order. The impugned order passed by the Registrar of the University challenged by the petitioners dated 25.11.2007 annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ applications are hereby quashed. Their cases should be considered for regularization in a similar manner as it has been done in case of 196 daily wagers. Petitioners should also be regularized w.e.f. the date of their appointment. Writ application is allowed. Md. Ibrarul (Mridula Mishra, J.)