IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10771 of 2011 Om Prakash Sah son of late Radhe Sah, Resident of Diwan Mohalla Ramjani Chauraha, Pato ki Bagh, P.S. Khajekalan, Patna City, Patna. ---Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Bihar,Patna. 2. The Bihar School Examination Board, Budh Marg Patna, through its Secretary. 3. The Chairman, The Bihar School Examination Board, Budh Marg Patna. 4. The Secretary, The Bihar School Examination Board, Budh Marg Patna. 5. The Additional Secretary (Establishment), The Bihar School Examination Board, Budh Marg, Patna. ---Respondents. ----------- 02 08.07.2011 This is second attempt of the petitioner before this Court in seeking a direction commanding the respondents to regularize his service with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this Court to the previous order passed by this Court on his application which is at Annexure-18. This Court, on consideration of the matter, disposed of the matter in the following terms:- “In view of the scheme stated to have been framed by the State Government, there is no occasion for this Court to consider the present matter on its own merits which may require a factual investigation, more particularly while examining whether petitioners be covered by the scheme or not. This Court is informed that in pursuance of certain orders of this Court a committee has been constituted by the respondents to examine the cases of those who claim eligibility and to be covered by the policy decision of regularization. If the State Government has framed a policy, a policy for regularization, quite naturally they are required to enquire the case of the petitioners in accordance with the scheme framed by them for regularization. This Court is informed 2 that the scheme is based on certain orders of this Court and the Apex Court. These are matters to be considered by the respondents themselves while applying the scheme to the petitioners in accordance with law.” In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the respondents considered the case/claim of the petitioner and denied the relief by order communicated through memo no.419 dated 26.10.2010, which has been impugned in the present application. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it appears that the petitioner was found to have worked intermittently between 1981 to 1998, and thereafter he was engaged on contract basis between 01.04. 2000 to 31.03.2001. In the light of said fact situation, the matter was considered by the respondents and his prayer to regularize the service was declined. Learned counsel for the respondents placed the contents of the order (Annexure-19). This Court does not find any infirmity in the said order meriting invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )