IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9831 of 2009 BINAY KUMAR JHA, S/O SRI BHUBNESHWAR JHA, R/O VILLAGE-NAVA NAGAR, P.O.-HARISINGHPUR, P.S.- BAHERA, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 3. VICE CHANCELLOR, LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 4. REGISTRAR, LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 08.09.2010 On the basis of a report of the Committee, as contained in Annexure-14, notice was issued to the petitioner, vide Annexure-1, and finally his services have been terminated vide Annexure-1/1. The report, which is the basis of the subsequent actions, shows that the cases of large number of employees were under consideration before the Committee and the Committee in a cryptic manner observed as follows:- “The appointment of the individual claimants are not in consonance with the recruitment rules as laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (supra). Hence, the process of appointment can not be treated as regular and legal. As such, the cases are observed as either irregularly or illegally made 2 without observing the recruitment rules.” Apparently, this is a general observation. As the cases of large number of incumbents were before the Committee, the case of each and every incumbent separately had to be considered in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court. A clear distinction has been made by the Constitution Bench as to what is illegality and what is irregularity. That distinction had to be kept in mind by the Committee for coming to a final conclusion as to case of which incumbent was illegal and the case of which incumbent was irregular and fit to be regularized. Apparently this exercise has not been done by the Committee and in one stroke of pen it has rejected the cases of all the incumbents. This is obviously a non- application of mind by the Committee. Since the subsequent action by the University was solely on the basis of the said report of the Committee, the subsequent actions are also bad. Learned counsel for the University does not raise any dispute with regard to 3 this infirmity in the report of the Committee and its consequent effect on the orders of the University. In the circumstances, the order passed by the University, as contained in Annexure-1/1, in respect of the petitioner is quashed. The report of the Committee, as contained in Annexure-14, is also quashed. The University is directed to hold an exercise or get an exercise held in terms of the observations of the Apex Court in the Constitution Bench to clearly distinguish the cases of the claimants falling in the category of illegal appointee and those falling in the category of irregular appointee. In case the incumbents whose cases University finds to be only irregular in strict terms of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench, the University shall consider their cases for regularization as one time measure as directed by the Constitution Bench. The writ application is allowed with the above observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)