IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1812 of 2011 Om Prakash Tiwary S/o late Sukhado Pd.Tiwary, R/o Vill- Kamdeopur ( Vikrampur)PS- Amarpur,Distt- Banka--------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secy. Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secy. General Administration Depatt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Jan Shiksha, Govt. of Bihar,Patna 5. The District Magistrate, Banka 6. The District Jan Shiksha Officer, Bhagalpur 7. The District Jan Shiksha Officer, Banka---Respondents ----------- 2 28.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Annexure-9 dated 20.4.2010 is under challenge in the present writ application. This is a speaking order passed by respondent on the basis of the earlier direction issued in batch cases of Om Prakash Tiwary etc. The case of the petitioner was ordered to be considered in the light of the order of the constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the of Uma Devi. From the discussion made in the speaking order there is categorical finding that the petitioner had not worked for ten years on the post before he was retrenched from the department of Non Formal Education. This fact was not denied by the petitioner. If that be so the reasoning given by the respondents for non-regularisation of the services of petitioner cannot be faulted because his case has to be strictly construed according to the observation of constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. - 2 - The grievance of the petitioner is that the other persons who were similarly retrenched were reinstated in terms of annexure-5. To this, this Court can only observe that the petitioner cannot be ordered to be reinstated after retrenchment in the present writ application as that is not the issue but it is quite different case. Since the case of the petitioner is not covered by Uma Devi respondents have done no wrong in declining the claim. With the accepted position that the petitioner had not worked for ten years on the post the impugned order does not suffer from any wrong reasoning or erroneous finding. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)