IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.45 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14286 of 2009 ====================================================== Harendra Kumar Prasad S/O Deen Dayal Raut R/O Vill.- Chhitrawalia, P.O.- Chhitrawalia, P.S.- Ekma, Distt.- Chapra (Saran) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Education, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Education Officer, Saran At Chapra 4. The Head Master, Ambika Dada High School, Chhitrawalia, Saran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri Mr. Kinkar Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Ga8) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) 07/ 26-09-2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. This review application has been filed by the writ petitioner for reviewing the order dated 01.02.2010, whereby the writ application has been dismissed considering the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. In the counter affidavit it was stated that the school is a privately managed school and the petitioner’s writ application is itself not maintainable. Petitioner has brought some documents on the record to show that the school Patna High Court C. REV. No.45 of 2010 (7) dt.26-09-2011 2 / 2 2 was taken over as a nationalized school and it is not a privately managed school. The statement made in the counter affidavit is false and misleading. In the counter affidavit filed by the State there is admission that the school is a Nationalized school but with regard to statement in the counter affidavit filed in the writ application, an attempt has been made to justify the statement, that in Nationalized School there is a Managing Committee, which has no role in the matters of appointment. In the case of petitioner’s appointment, since recommendation had been made by the Managing Committee, petitioner’s prayer for regularization is not maintainable. Whatever be the matter, this is an admitted fact that petitioner has not been appointed following the procedure for appointment on Class IV post. There is no statement that as a daily wager he is working against a sanctioned vacant post. In this circumstance, the prayer for regularization cannot be allowed. This review application is, accordingly, dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J)