IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.765 of 2007 GAJENDRA KUMAR SON OF LATE SHIV SHANKAR ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KATHARI, P.S. RIGA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT IN CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT IN R.S.S. MAHILA COLLEGE, SITAMARHI 2. RAMADHAR SINGH SON OF LATE KAMAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BALHAN MUSAHARI, P.S. PARSAUNI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT IN R.S.S. MAHILA COLLEGE, SITAMARHI……. APPELLANTS Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, BABA SAHEB BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE REGISTRAR, BABA SAHEB BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE PRINCIPAL, RAM SEWAK SINGH MAHILLA COLLEGE,SITAMARHI………………………….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 7 30-11-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-8-2007 whereby the writ petition preferred by both the appellants, jointly seeking regularization on class-III post in a College at Sitamarhi, was dismissed after noticing the reasons given by the State Government in the order impugned before the writ court. It is not in dispute that appellants had approached this court earlier also in the years 1997 and 1998 and those orders were annexed as annexures to the writ petition. One of 2 those orders contained in Annexure-1/1 dated 17-3-99 passed by Justice A.K.Ganguly (as he then was) discloses that the State Government was directed to examine whether the petitioners service was on the basis of valid selection procedure following the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The State Government by Annexure-2 to the writ petition, which was under challenge, held that there was absence of evidence/material to show that the appointment was done as per prescribed procedure. Two other reasons were also indicated for not concurring with the proposal for regularization of services of the petitioners on class III post in a college which is said to have become a constituent college in the year 1980. On behalf of appellants efforts were made to persuade this court to look into some other judgments and materials to show that persons who were allegedly similarly situated have been given some benefits under orders of this court. The issue as to how others were appointed and what materials were there to show for their appointment, cannot be gone into this appeal when it was not raised in the writ petition. In the writ petition, while challenging the order of the State Government appellant- 3 petitioners could not bring on record any evidence to show that his appointment allegedly made prior to 1980 was in accordance with the prescribed procedure and in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The order of the State Government further shows that there was lack of materials/evidence to show continuity of the service of the petitioner and continuity of regular payment to them. Admittedly, since 1980 nothing has been paid to the petitioners. In the facts of the case, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)