IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.217 of 2007 ***** Vinod Kumar Jha son of late Shree Kant Jha, resident of village Dhamaura P.S. Shathi, Distt. West Champaran. …. …. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Collector, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Deputy Collector, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Director, Bihar Education Project, Muzafarpur, Now Beltron Bhawan, Patna. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. A.B.Ojha, Advocate Mr. Jagannath Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, Standing Counsel-V Mr. Binod Kumar, Junior Counsel to Standing Counsel-V ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 27th November, 2008. The appellant is an unsuccessful petitioner. In the writ petition filed by him on 10th November, 2003, he prayed that respondents be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner by giving effect to the order passed by this Court on 28th June, 2000. That the appellant was not in employment on the date of filing of the writ petition is admitted by his counsel. If that be so, where was the question of regularization when the appellant was not even in service. - 2 - The Single Judge considered the matter thus: - “The petitioner seeks regularization on the post of typist in the Muzaffarpur Collectorate. Admittedly the petitioner was engaged to work without any advertisement or a proper selection as per the norms. According to the petitioner he worked till the year 2000 when despite an earlier order of the Court to maintain status quo, he was not allowed to sign the attendance register and was not given any further work. The up- shoot is that the petitioner is no longer working for the past six years. The original engagement being totally irregular and the engagement having been terminated more than six years ago, no direction for the petitioner’s regularization on a Class III post can be given by the Court.” 2. We find ourselves in agreement with the view of the Single Judge. 3. Letters Patent Appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-