IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7427 of 2004 SMT. ASHA CHOWDHARY wife of Dr. Ramchandra Chowdhary, resident of ‘Swastika’ Mishra Tola, Darbhanga, P.S. Town Thana, District- Darbhanga. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. LALIT NARAIN MITHILA UNIVERSITy through its Registrar. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, L. N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. 3. The Registrar, L. N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. 4. The Deputy Registrar III, L. N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. 5. The Principal, M. R. Mahila Maha Vidyalaya, Darbhanga. ... Respondents. ----------- 3. 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no difficulty in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner so far it relates to regularization of her service inasmuch as her initial appointment was not only made by the incompetent authority but also against unsanctioned post of Garment Making Inspector. It is beyond pale of controversy that neither such post was ever sanctioned by the State Government in terms of Section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act nor the Principal of the College had any jurisdiction to make the appointment against such post. On the basis of such illegal appointment, the services of the petitioner cannot be regularized merely because at one point of time the Vice- Chancellor had subsequently given his approval for the continuation of the petitioner on daily wages in the 2 College. There is also no dispute that when the vacant sanctioned posts were advertised, the petitioner was given an opportunity to compete with others but then in that selection also the petitioner was found to be unfit. Thus when the petitioner had been no longer continuing in service, the prayer for her regularization of service must be and is hereby rejected inasmuch as this Court also does not find any error in the order dated 25.11.2007 passed by the respondents during the pendency of this writ application and assailed in I. A. No. 2605 of 2008. The other aspect which however would require reconsideration by the University and the College would be as with regard to payment of daily wages for the period the petitioner had admittedly worked. It is the case of the petitioner that she had continued to work in the period in question from January 2002 till the issuance of order dated 25.11.2007. Normally, this part of the prayer also would have been adjudicated by this Court but then there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the University. Filing of the counter affidavit by the University in this Court, in fact has become a matter of past. Be that as it may, if the Vice-Chancellor would 3 find after obtaining the report from the Principal of the College that the petitioner had actually worked in the period between January 2002 till 25.11.2007, he would also direct the Principal to make payment of salary on daily wages on the same terms and conditions on which his engagement was made on daily wages. If the Vice- Chancellor would find that there is no proof of working of the petitioner, he would reject such claim by giving his reasons. This exercise must be completed by the Vice- Chancellor of the University within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)