IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4814 of 2004 HAIDER ALI SON OF ATE ABDUSH SHAKOOR RESIDENT OF KOTWALI CHOWK, P.S. LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. COMMISSIONER, STATE TRANSPORT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA. ----------- 4 21/07/2010 Annexure-22 which is under challenge in the present writ application filed by the petitioner is a speaking order which has been passed in terms of the direction earlier issued in C.W.J.C. No. 5283 of 2001. The issue was regularisation of services of the petitioner who was working as daily wager as a typist under the respondents Regional Transport Authority at Darbhanga. Reasoned order has been passed where the claim for regularization of the petitioner has been rejected primarily on two grounds, namely, (i) that the petitioner had not completed 240 days on the concerned date when the matter of regularization was being considered along with other employees and that (ii) as per roster clearance, there was no post available to be filled up for the O.B.C. to which the - 2 - petitioner belong. Vacancy was in the category of E.B.C. and the same could not be offered to the petitioner as a matter of right. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner has two submissions to make, (i) that the Circular dated 10th May, 2005 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Bihar had extended the cut off date for completion of 240 days to 11.12.1990 and if this Circular is taken into consideration then the petitioner does come within the zone of consideration for regularization, (ii) the other submission is that subsequently the caste of the petitioner was included in the E.B.C. category and, therefore, that objection that post was not available for him also vanishes. The question which has to be decided by this Court is whether the decision rendered by the competent authority on the direction of the High Court can be said to be erroneous on either of the two grounds. The facts stand that both the so called changes or the benefit being claimed by the petitioner is of subsequent event and the question of regularization was being considered at an appropriate time frame. When his case - 3 - was considered both these facts were against the petitioner. Subsequent development or circulars may be prospective in nature and that cannot be used to declare the reasoned order to be erroneous in any manner. In absence of any other infirmities having been pointed out, no interference is required with the speaking order contained in annexure-22. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)