IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12240 of 2007 UMESH PRASAD SINGH S/o Shri Jugal Prasad singh, resident of village- Brahmpur Pokhar- M.I.T, P.S- Brahmpur, District- muzaffarpur. ---------------Petitioner Versus 1. B.R.AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, Muzaffarpur represented through the Vice Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University Muzaffarpur. 2. The Vice Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Pro- Vice Chancellor, B.R Ambedkar Bihar University Muzaffarpur. 4. The Registrar, B.R. Ambedkar bihar University, Muzaffarpur 5. The Finance Officer, B.R.Ambedkar Bihar University Muzaffarpur. 6. The State of Bihar. 7. The Special Secretary, Higher Education, Department of Education , Govt of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001. ---------Respondents For the Petitioner---- Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, Mr. Rajev Ranjan Mr. Santosh Bharti For the University--- Mr. Ajay Behari For the State--- Mr. S.D.Sanjay, AAG 12 Mr. Gopal Prasad Gupta AC to AAG 12 9 13.04.2011 The petitioner was employed as Lab Assistant in the Post Graduate Department of Physics of the B. R. Ambedkar Bihar University in the year 1984 allegedly on sanctioned vacant post. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C No. 3834 of 1999 which was disposed on 27.6.2000 (Annexure 3) to the writ petition. This Court though noticed that the petitioner had been working since 1st July 1984, refused to issue any direction with regard to regularization to the contrary. If issued direction to the State to immediately sanction the post and once the post was sanctioned direction was issued to the University to advertise the post and give preference to the petitioner for being employed on the said post. It is pursuant to the aforesaid services of the petitioner having been accepted as regular by the State and the University 2 with effect from 2004 by this writ petition. Petitioner claims for regularization of a service from 1.7.1984 to 2004. Having considered the matter, in my view, for the said relief the present writ petition is not maintainable. Petitioner had suffered the order declining to grant him the said relief in the earlier writ petition that bars petitioner’s present writ application on principles of constructive res judicata. The writ petition for the relief is thus not maintainable and is dismissed. Namita ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)