IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1145 of 2009 KAILASH BISHWASH SON OF LATE SITARAM BISHWASH, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. BIHARIGANJ, P.S. BIHARIGANJ, DISTT- MADHEPURA………………………………………...PETITIONER/APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, GOVT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE REGIONAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, MUZAFFARPUR. 6. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, EXTENSION DIVISION, PURNEA. 8. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KATIHAR 9. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PURNEA………..ESPONDENTS………….RESPONDENTS ------------- 4. 29-Mar-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. On the basis of Annexure-9 to the writ petition it has been submitted that a large number of writ petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 22nd January, 2007 and without going into the facts of individual cases, all the matters were remitted for being considered by a Committee of Government Servants - 2 - as per direction of the Court. It has been submitted that similar orders were passed in batch of other writ petitions covering employees of various departments including forest department to which the petitioner claims to belong. According to learned counsel for the appellant case of some of the employees covered by the aforesaid decision are same as that of the appellant and hence his case should also be sent to the Committee to find out whether he could be regularized and taken into Government service on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. 3. The writ Court has gone into the facts of the appellant’s case and recorded that he is no longer in service after the year 1995. With respect to his past service which was on daily wages, the writ Court has noticed and recorded that there is no material to show that the initial appointment was made following the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. In view of the aforesaid finding of facts made by the Court and in absence of any plausible explanation as to why the appellant chose not to move this Court after - 3 - 1995, we are not persuaded to indulge into a futile exercise and refer the case of the appellant to the Committee constituted by earlier orders of the Court. We find no merit in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Gopal Prasad,J.)