IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7558 of 1997 BIRENDDRA SINGH @ BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF SHRI RAMBRAT SINGH RESIDENT OF BHARGAMA, P.S. BHARGAMA, DISTRICT ARARIA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER CUM DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WAT ER RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, REVENUE ADMINISTRATION CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISION, KOSHI PROJECT, PURNEA. 6. THE DEPUTY COLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISION, KOSHI PROJECT, ARARIA. 7. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISION, KOSHI PROJECT, SAHARSA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ranjit Kumar Singh I. For the State :- Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, A.C. to AAG IX ------ 3 10/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner wants regularization of his services in terms of the so called policy decision dated 2.5.1992 made by the State of Bihar contained in annexure-8. As per the petitioner, he initially worked as a seasonal collector under Water Resources Department in Purnea Division. Later on given the work of Receipt Writing Clerk on the orders of the - 2 - Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Araria and he shouldered his responsibility with due diligence in that capacity for a long time and he had not been given benefit of regularization or conferment of permanent status despite the policy formulated by the State to regularize the services of similarly situated persons. Stand of the State in the counter affidavit is that the case for regularization of seasonal Muharrirs, which the petitioner is, was considered by the concerned respondents not once but twice over but both times looking at the number of vacancies, roster point clearance as well as seniority list of the petitioner, the petitioner could not be conferred that benefit. Petitioner belongs to general category. So, on both counts petitioner did not make it to the cut off list and that was the reason for his non regularization. It is not a case that the case of the petitioner was not considered at all. Keeping in mind recent decision on this issue including the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi, no direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner now. Further keeping in view that the case of the petitioner was considered as a part of the scheme for - 3 - regularization and since he did not make it to the cut off point, he could not be conferred the benefit. No direction can be issued in the above circumstance in favour of the petitioner for regularization. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)