IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3592 of 2009 RAM KRISHNA YADAV & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 4 3-11-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the Tilka Manjhi University, Bhagalpur. From the order contained in annexure-1 dated 21- 3-2005 which is sought to be implemented through this contempt application, it appears that the limited challenge before the writ court was whether the order discontinuing the petitioners as daily wagers was a mechanical order passed without application of mind or not. Following another judgment in respect of similar order of discontinuance the order of discontinuance was set aside with an observation that petitioners may pursue their claims before the University in accordance with law. Through this contempt application petitioners want that the opposite parties representing Tilkamanjhi University Bhagalpur and its officials should regularize the services of the petitioners in Class-III posts under University on account of several circulars and policy decisions of the State Government issued several years ago. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University has 2 submitted that the University took a policy decision for regularizing or absorbing daily wagers in the service of the University and for that purpose a limited advertisement was issued even before the disposal of the writ petition and petitioners also applied and took the limited examination. They were included in the list of successful candidates for the purpose of absorption on account of mistake and subsequently the decisions contained in annexures 9 and 10 to the rejoinder to the show cause were cancelled and superseded by office order no 32/2003 of the University issued on 25-1-2003. A perusal of Annexure-A shows that on the basis of examination held in 2002 for selecting the employees for absorption and following the rules of reservation the qualified daily wagers were appointed/regularized in the service of the University. Petitioners name do not find place in annexure-A. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, even if petitioners were not selected on the basis of limited examination, still they should be regularized in view of earlier policy decision of the Government on account of their seniority as daily wagers. It is difficult to accept this proposition and to hold that regularization should be on the 3 basis of seniority position alone. Once a limited advertisement was issued and petitioners applied and could not succeed they cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the method decided by the University by way of policy for selection and regularization. Hence this Court finds no merit in the contempt application. It is accordingly dismissed. It goes without saying that the observation made in this order is only for the purpose of contempt proceeding and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the University contained in annexure- A issued long back in the year 2003, if so advised, they may pursue their remedy through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)