IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9081 of 2002 Nageshwar Paswan, Son of Jitu Paswan, Resident of Vill. Etha (Manikpur), P.S. Sakra, Distt. Muzaffarpur. ----------- Petitioner Versus 1. Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, at Samastipur, through its Registrar. 2. Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa at Samastipur. 3. Director, Administration Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa at Samastipur. 4. Deon cum-Principal, Tirhut College of Agricultural, Dholi, Muzaffarpur. 5. Officer Incharge, Recruitment Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa at Samastipur. ----------- Respondents ----------- 6 21.06.2010 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents are also absent. A bare perusal of the writ application would go to show that the grievance of the petitioner as summarized in paragraph no.1 of the writ application is to the following effect:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order dated 9.11.98, passed by Dean cum Principal Tirhut College of Agriculture Dholi, Muzaffarpur Dholi, Muzaffarpur by which he has stayed the order of appointment issued vide office order no. 383, dated 9.11.98 and reverted the petitioner as a causal labor as well as for issuance of any other writ or 2 writs, direction or directions to the Respondents to treat the petitioner as a permanent employee and to give the entire consequences there of.” The respondents, however, had explained this aspect of the matter in the counter affidavit by taking a plea that such consideration was to be made by the Rajendra Agriculture University (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the University’) by giving a preferential treatment by way of absorption to the daily wagers, who had completed minimum fifteen years of service. The respondents have explained that the petitioner had only completed twelve years of service, each year in which he had worked for at least 240 days or more. It has also been explained that on this ground that the petitioner being wrongly selected on the basis of misrepresentation was sought to be removed later on by way of the impugned order. Let it be noted that such counter affidavit was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 2.9.2002 and similarly the supplementary counter affidavit was also served to the petitioner on 8.10.2002 but 3 there is no rejoinder to the same by the petitioner and therefore, it will be deemed that whatever has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University is correct. Thus, this Court would find that the petitioner did not qualify as per the norms fixed by the Supreme Court in respect of the daily wagers, his absorption or regularization of service being not permissible in law was rightly recalled/rescinded. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)