IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1896 of 2008 1. Sheo Nath Prasad Sahani Son of Sri Ram Narayan Sahani, Resident of Mohalla Malahi Pakari, PO. Lohia Nagar, P.S. Kanakarbagh, District Patna. 2. Mahendra Yadav, Son of Sri Shia Gope, Resident of Mohalla New Paharpur Police Colony, P.O. Anishabad, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna 3. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Palakdhari Singh, Resident of Village Nirpur, P.O. Bariarpur, P.S. Bariarpur, District Munger. 4. Vijay Kumar, Son of Sri Gariban Das, Resident of Mohalla Gardanibagh, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna……………………………………………………………………………………Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna. 4. The District Education Officer, Patna. 5. The Principal, Sahid Rajendra Prasad Singh High School, Gardanibagh, Patna-2, District Patna. 6. The Principal, Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar Boys High School, Shastri Nagar, Patna-23, District Patna…………………………………………………………………………Respondents ----------- 3 22.06.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State Learned senior counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that since four petitioners were engaged by the Principal of the High Schools in January, 1997 and June, 1998 on some honorarium and continued in such capacity since then and out of four, three had completed ten years by 2007, when they were disengaged, their cases may be directed to be considered by 2 the respondents in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), reported in 2006 (2) PLJR 363 (SC) and State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari, reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 247. It is asserted in the counter affidavit that engagement of the petitioners was hardly any employment in any capacity. Therefore, they have no right to be considered for any regularisation in terms of the said judgments of the Apex Court. It is also contended that petitioners were terminated in 2007 itself as engagement of petitioners was temporary arrangement and fund had already exhausted. Since learned senior counsel for the petitioners prays only for consideration of cases of petitioners without any further direction from this Court, liberty is granted to them to represent before the concerned respondent for such consideration of their cases. If they file such representations, the concerned respondent may consider them in accordance with law 3 and dispose it of by a speaking order, in the light of the above judgments of the Apex Court, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to merit of claims of the petitioners. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)