IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2686 of 2005 ABHIMANYU KUMAR CHAUDHARY, SON OF LATE KEWAL NARAYAN CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. KOTHIYA, P.S. PATGHAT, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY (IN SHORT L.N.M.U.), DARBHANGA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA THROUGH REGISTRAR, L.N.M.U., DARBHANGA. 3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, L.N.M.U., DARBHANGA. 4. THE REGISTRAR, L.N.M.U., DARBHANGA. 5. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR-III, L.N.M.U., DARBHANGA. 6. THE PRINCIPAL, C.M. COLLEGE, DARBHANGA (A CONSTITUENT UNIT OF L.N.M.U., DARBHANGA). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS *********** 3 3.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. Petitioner was working as a Routine Clerk in C.M. College, Darbhanga on daily wages since 1983 to 1993. His services were terminated in the year 1993. After termination of the service, the union of the college moved this Court on behalf of 22 persons including this petitioner for their regularization by filing a writ application. The writ application was dismissed. Out of 22 persons, 5 persons moved the Supreme Court against the order of this High Court raising an issue that the Hon’ble High Court 2 had considered only the order of termination of the writ petitioners but had not considered the question of regularization. The matter was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration which has been disposed of on 30.10.1998 by a Division Bench of this Court vide CWJC No. 4691 of 1993 wherein this Court after considering the number of sanctioned posts etc., allowed the cases of the five persons who had moved the Apex Court by holding that they had remained uninterruptedly in service for about 13 years. In the mean time, the University issued an advertisement for filling up the posts. The petitioner applied for the post advertised, however, his case was not accepted. Subsequently, the petitioner moved the Vice-chancellor vide Annexure-6 making a claim that he ought to be considered for regularization in view of the fact that others who were similarly situated to him has been regularized by an order of this Court. The Principal of the college recommended the regularization of the petitioner which would be apparent from 3 Annexure-6 dated 21.3.1998 and the Vice- chancellor of the University also directed that the matter of regularization of the petitioner should be put up along with the concerned file. In the present writ application, a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner that he should be regularized in view of the fact that other similarly situated have been regularized and in view of the fact that the petitioner had worked uninterruptedly for the college concerned for a period of ten years. On consideration of the facts, this Court finds that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage, as the petitioner had lost the chance of being considered for regularization in view of the fact that only five of the 22 terminated employees had moved the Supreme Court against the order of this Court. Subsequently, these five persons have pursued the matter in the High Court and had got relief from this Court. Any other order passed subsequent to the order of the Supreme Court or the order passed in the writ application cannot now be considered 4 for the purposes of regularization of the petitioner. The petitioner’s writ application is thus not maintainable in view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the delay and latches in approaching this Court after the order of the High Court/Supreme Court, passed on 30th of October, 1998. In any event, the question of regularization of the services have now been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi wherein it has been held that regularization can only be made in certain circumstances as a one time measure. The petitioner by virtue of latches on his part has missed the opportunity of being regularized by the College/University concerned and as such this Court cannot pass any positive order in favour of the petitioner. This writ application is, thus, dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)