IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8054 of 2007 SANJAY KUMAR PANDIT, son of Shri Pancha Nand Pandit, resident of village – Laloo Chak Angari, P.O. Ishak Chak, P.s. Lodipur, Disstrict – Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur. 4. The District Magistrate, Banka. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Banka. 6. The Incharge Deputy Collector, Legal Section, Banka Collectorate, Banka. 7. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Banka. 8. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Bihar, Patna. 9. The Regional Conservatory of Forest, Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 10. The Conservator of Forest, Bhagalpur Circle, Bhagalpur. 11. The Divisional Forest Officer, Banka Division, Banka. ----------- 02. 25.06.2010 Case of the petitioner is that his service has been utilised as a daily wager by the so-called Forest Department of what is known as Jai Prakash Udyan at Bhagalpur. There is some evidence to show that petitioner has worked as a gardener since the year 1983. Despite rendering services in that capacity for many a years, when his service was not regularized, he decided to file a writ application seeking appropriate direction. The writ was disposed of in terms of annexure-5 with liberty to the petitioner to file representation before respondent No.3. The said respondent was obliged to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law in light of a direction given in CWJC No. 10530 of 1995. When the order of this Court was not complied, even a contempt was filed. 2 By the intervention of the Court respondent district authorities did carry out some exercise by creating a panel for appointment and in this regard an advertisement dated 19.8.2004 came to be issued. Draft publication of the panel did not reflect the name of the petitioner. Petitioner objected and protested. In the contempt application also when the issue was raised a stand was taken that the petitioner had never applied and therefore there was no occasion for his name being included in the panel. At that point of time that was taken to be the correct stand in the matter. Petitioner, however, did his home work and also filed an application under Right to Information Act. Information has been furnished and now the respondents certify that his application or his name does figure in the list of applicants at serial No. 4729. This is an information given by the Establishment Deputy Collector, Banka vide letter No.521 dated 26.9.2007. Obviously affidavit filed before the Court in the contempt application at the relevant time did not state the truth. Whether it was by oversight or intentional, the Court is not inclined to investigate keeping in view the order which is going to be passed. There are reflections that the petitioner has worked as a daily wager. If an exercise was carried out by the District Administration in the year 2004 creating a panel based upon the seniority, then the petitioner had a right to be considered 3 and included. Obviously mischief has been played with the petitioner when petitioner responded to the advertisement dated 19.8.2004. The only reason why his name was not included was because it was the stand of the respondents that petitioner was not an applicant. But that does not seem to be correct. Obviously for the lapses of the respondents petitioner has suffered. The certification is now made under right to information about the existence of the application of the petitioner, which gives him a right now to be included in the panel depending upon the number of years of service rendered. For the fault of the respondents the petitioner can not suffer. The writ application is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner’s name will be included in the panel and in future after some policy is formulated by the respondents and persons from the said panel are given opportunity for regular appointment, the case of the petitioner too shall be considered on its own merit for regularization / appointment in terms of the policy or rules. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )