IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15303 of 2007 1. Raj Kishore Pandey, son of late Janardan Pandey, R/o Mohalla Chandi Pd. Lane, Jagshar, P.O. Budha Nath, P.S. Adampur. Presently posted as Lab-Incharge, Department of Statistics, Marwari College, Bhagalpur. 2. Md. Jamshed Alam, S/o Nasir Alam, Mohalla Sahebganj, P.S. T.M.B. University, P.S. University, Dist. Bhagalpur. Presently posted as Peon, Marwari College, Bhagalpur. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, through its Registrar. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 4. The Registrar, T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 5. The Principal, Marwari College, Bhagalpur. ------------- Respondents ---------------------------------- 3 02.12.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer for retrospective regularization of services of the petitioner from the date of their initial engagement on daily wages seems to be wholly misconceived specially when it is taken into account that such initial engagement of the petitioners was not only made by an incompetent authority, namely, the Principal of Marwari College, Bhagalpur, a constituent unit of Bhagalpur University but, also, in violation of the mandate of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. If in such a situation, the University, under the orders of the State Government having got the approved sanctioned post under the decision of the Chancellor and 2 the Vice Chancellor, has regularized the services of the petitioners by the impugned order giving them the benefit of past service with effect from 5.6.2003, that cannot be interfered by this Court specially when the following stand of the University in its counter affidavit:- “13. That, however, the State Government neither approved these appointment nor released any grant for payment of salary. The Director, Higher Education vide letter no. IV3-111/03 H.E.876 dated 01.10.2003 made certain queries. Consequently all queries of the State Government in this regard were not out of different modified office orders and finally in the year 2006 modified office order nos. 84/06 to 89/06 dt. 27.5.2006 replacing all previous office orders was notified but the effective date of absorption remained same as was sent initially to the State Government for approval. The same is prevailing in practice as present. The effective date of absorption remained as 05.06.2003 in it also.” has not been controverted despite service of the counter affidavit on the counsel for the petitioner on 30.8.2008. 3 That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)