IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7837 of 2009 RAJESH KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3 14.5.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner claims to be appointed on the vacant and sanctioned post vide order contained in memo no. 2187 dated 30.6.1987. His grievance is that after remaining in service for five years, he was prevented to discharge his duty vide order contained in memo no. 130 dated 16.12.1992. It is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that prior to issuance of the order contained in memo no.130 dated 16.12.1992; petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard. On perusal of the statement made in the writ application, it transpires that petitioner started working as daily wager, in the year 1979, at daily wage of Rs.10/- per day. Thereafter, suddenly, without there being any advertisement for appointment against the post of Non Medical Assistant, he was appointed on the post of Non- 2 Medical Assistant. None of the procedure, for a legal appointment was followed. On the basis of such appointment, petitioner continued for 4 to 5 years, but thereafter he was restrained from working. In the writ application, no-where it is stated that the petitioner was paid his salary, after joining on the post, during entire period of his service. The petitioner has annexed a certificate issued by District Provident Fund Officer, as Annexure-4, in order to show that there had been deductions from his salary towards his contribution in general provident fund Account. Other documents, annexed by the petitioner with the writ application, only indicates that since the date of petitioner’s appointment, till the date petitioner was restrained from discharging his duty, a continuous query was being made regarding the genuineness of his appointment. Frequently the authorities at District Level were being asked by the Director, Health Service Patna to examine relevant documents, connected with petitioner’s appointment in order to find out the legality of his appointment. Admittedly, after 1992, petitioner has not worked. He 3 has not challenged the order whereby he was terminated. After so many years of his termination petitioner has filed this writ application, with a prayer to regularize his service and allow him to work on the post, he was earlier appointed. It has been submitted by the petitioner that 12 persons were appointed along with the petitioner, out of them six are still working but others six including the petitioner had been discriminated. Without going into the merit of the case, this writ application is being disposed off, giving liberty to the petitioner to represent his case before the competent authority. In case such a representation is filed, the authority concerned will dispose it off, by a reasoned order. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar