IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7798 of 2009 Shivbrat Prasad Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. B. N. P. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, GP 14, with Mr. Subodh Kumar, AC to GP 14 ---------- 4. 26.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents as directed on 4.8.2011. The Court shall therefore consider the allegation of discrimination without the same on basis of materials on record. The petitioner was a Seasonal Clerk / Moharir in the Araria Revenue Division created afresh from the old Purnea Division. He seeks relief for regularisation of his services with effect from 17.5.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed in seasonal capacity against a vacant sanctioned post. A decision dated 2.5.1992 was taken for constitution of a High Level Committee for regularisation of services of seasonal employees in the Revenue Directorate. A panel was prepared and published on 18.1.1994 in which the petitioner stood at serial 19. Persons from that panel junior to him have been regularized on different posts on 8.6.2004 except for one causing hostile discrimination by arbitrariness against the petitioner. The petitioner moved this Court in CWJC No. 10535 of 1996 when he was directed to represent before the authorities. That has been rejected by the impugned order dated 31.3.2009. 2 Counsel for the State from the impugned order submitted that the order is reasoned. It acknowledges his serial position at 19 in the panel. The petitioner could not be appointed due to lack of vacancy as mentioned in the impugned order. Answering the allegations of hostile discrimination learned Counsel from para 10 of the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner was from the Araria Revenue Division and therefore was not considered for regularisation in absence of vacancy. He was not eligible to be considered against the vacancy in Saharsa Revenue Division. A seasonal employee per se may not be entitled to regularisation. But if the respondents have framed such scheme, they are required to abide by it. If the scheme provides for absorption of seasonal employees in categories apportioned according to the Revenue Divisions, it is not possible for this Court under Article 226 to hold that this administrative decision was arbitrary or illegal to warrant interference in judicial review. If the petitioner was empanelled for purposes of regularisation, but was unsuccessful in his Revenue Division because of lack of vacancy it is not possible for this Court to grant any relief based upon action in another Revenue Division. The respondents in the impugned order have in any event also stated that in accordance with the staffing pattern from 2.12.1993 several persons in the Moharir cadre have been declared surplus and were not required. It further states that from 17.5.2005 in the interest of revenue administration several Revenue Divisions have been abolished when further directions have been issued that those whose services had been handed over, the post shall come to an end on superannuation/death of the employee concerned. 3 It is not possible for the court to grant any relief for regularisation to the petitioner. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)