IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11295 of 2008 PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, S/O HARI KESHWAR MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE-PARSAUNI, P.S.-DUMARA, DISTRICT- SEETAMARHI. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY THROUGH THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE REGISTRAR, B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, RAMSEWAK SINGH MAHILA COLLEGE, SEETAMARHI. ………….RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 25.07.2011 Annexure-2 is the order of the Vice-Chancellor disposing of the representation of the petitioner in compliance to the orders of this Court dated 05.08.1994 passed in CWJC No.1845 of 1994. The order of the Vice-Chancellor shows that the appointment of the petitioner was found void ab initio as it was not established from the records that the prescribed procedure was adhered to in his appointment. It has also been stated that this appointment was in the teeth of Section 35(2) of the Bihar State Universities Act. The Vice-Chancellor notices the Full Bench judgment in the case 2 of Braj Kishore Singh Vs. State of Bihar and also notices that by a letter dated 13.05.1998 the State Government has been requested for sanction of additional posts of 3rd and 4th grade for the college. Hence, he has disposed of the representation of the petitioner observing that the case of the petitioner can be considered after directives of the State Government are received in the light of the Full Bench judgment. This order was passed when the judgment of the Full Bench in the said Braj Kishore Singh’s case was in operation. In paragraph 6 of the writ application petitioner has claimed that he was appointed in the college on 07.03.1978 against a class-IV post and he is continuing in the College. Now after Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka Vs. Uma Devi (3) [2006(2) PLJR (SC) 363] any case of regularization has to be considered in the light of the ratio laid down in the judgment and liberty granted to the parties 3 to consider the cases of individual employees for regularization, as one time measure, within the parameters laid down in paragraph 44 thereof. Since the law has been laid down which has a force of law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, no other judgment or Government decision, contrary to the same, can be taken into account for consideration of cases of individual employees. The Constitution Bench has clearly laid down that the employees who have continued for more than 10 years their cases have only to be considered if their appointments are found only irregular and not illegal. Since the petitioner claims that, he is still continuing in the college, surely he has completed more than 10 years of service on the date of judgment of the Constitution Bench. Hence, his case is required to be considered by the University authorities specifically within the parameters laid down by the Constitution Bench in the said paragraph 44. The writ application is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to 4 the University authorities to undertake that exercise in the light of Constitution Bench as interpreted by the Apex Court in its subsequent judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. M.L.Keshri [2010 (9) SCC 247] and take a final decision in the matter of the petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)