IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9 of 2007 ==================================================== ARJUN RAM, SON OF SHRI RAM BARAT, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MEDICAL COLONY YARPUR, POLICE STATION GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR VIDHAN PARISHAD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR VIDHAN PARISHAD, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR VIDHAN PARISHAD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BIHAR VIDHAN PARISHAD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 02. 01.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar Vidhan Parishad(hereinafter referred to as the Parishad). 2. Petitioner earlier served as peon in the Parishad on fixed payment of Rs.2550/- per month with other admissible allowances in the light of the order bearing Memo No.2061 dated 26.7.1999, Annexure-1. Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that initial appointment was made for the period between 26.7.1999-29.2.2000, which was extended from time to time and ultimately under order bearing Memo No.127(2) dated 18.01.2006, Annexure-5 his service was regularized on the post of Peon in the scale of Rs.2550-3200/-. He has filed this writ petition 2 challenging the order bearing letter no.2553 dated 22.7.2006, Annexure-8 whereunder order regularizing his service has been cancelled on the ground that petitioner was initially engaged in the Parishad through back door without undergoing any selection process. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that cause shown by the petitioner should have been accepted by the authorities of the Parishad as there was no complaint against him during the period he served the Parishad as appointee on the fixed pay and even after regularization of his service under order dated 18.01.2006. 4. Counsel for the Parishad opposed the aforesaid submission. He states that petitioner was engaged without any advertisement and his engagement being through back door, he could not have been regularized along with M/s Pankaj Kumar and Raj Kumar Prasad under order dated 18.1.2006. He also submitted that Pankaj Kumar has also been removed from the employment of the Parishad who preferred C.W.J.C. No.1998 of 2008 which has been dismissed under orders dated 2.2.2010 and this Court 3 should also dismiss the present writ petition. 5. True it is that petitioner, Pankaj Kumar and Raj Kumar Prasad were absorbed in the service of the Parishad under order dated 18.01.2006 without appreciating the fact that their initial entry in the service of the Parishad was through back door and when such mistake was realized by the authorities petitioner and others were rightly removed from the employment of the Parishad. I cannot find fault with the order dated 22.7.2006, Annexure-8, however, before parting with this order, I would like to observe that as and when regular employment over Class-IV post is undertaken by the Parishad and petitioner is an applicant for the said appointment, he should be allowed not only relaxation in maximum age for appointment on Class-IV post but also his case be considered taking into account the satisfactory past service rendered by him to the Parishad. 6. With the observation aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)