IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4499 of 2011 Abhay Kant Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 02. 26.7.2011 Claim of the petitioner for absorption under the State is supposedly based on a circular issued by the State Government dated 12th January, 2010. This circular further has been issued in the background of protracted litigation before this Court, reference of some of those orders have been given in the said circular. Stand of the counsel for the petitioner is that there cannot be any discrimination between this petitioner and other persons working in the Adult Education Programme, in matters of regularization/absorption under the State. Counsel for the State initially filed a counter affidavit which tried to make a distinction amongst those persons who were engaged by the State in Adult Education Programme as well as in Formal Education Scheme of which the petitioner was a Supervisor engaged at the relevant time in the 80’s. Since the objects of the two schemes were totally different, therefore, according to the State, case of the petitioner was not covered by Annexure-4, which is circular dated 12th January, 2010 issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department. It was in this background that the Court directed 2 personal appearance of the person who had sworn the affidavit as the affidavit was very sketchy and did not annex the relevant documents in support of the stand taken. A supplementary counter affidavit thereafter has been filed duly served on the petitioner. Now the respondents have brought on record a recent circular dated 30.5.2011 issued by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, again clarifying his earlier circular contained in Annexure-4 on the issue. A reading of the said circular will show that the benefit will not accrue to the petitioner. If this is the position with regard to such persons who belong to the category of the present petitioner then there cannot be an occasion to give any direction to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Annexure-4. Reasons exist for making that distinction and therefore, whatever be the submission of the kind, the State is not precluded or barred from explaining its earlier circular with regard to the modality worked out for absorption of the two kinds of persons engaged at the relevant time. No case is made out in favour of the petitioner in light of Annexure-B annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit. Matter should therefore be allowed to rest. Writ is dismissed as being devoid of merit. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)