IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1354 of 2004 RAM PRAVESH SHARMA Son of Sri Hardeo Narayan Singh resident of village Murera, P.O. Murera, P.S. Konch, District- Gaya. ------------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4. The District Education Officer, Gaya. -----------------Respondents For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Senior Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, A.C. to G.A. 5 4. 7.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner who was initially appointed as a clerk in the District of Gaya. The said appointment of the clerk was made for a period of three years, for which an advertisement was supposedly published on the notice board in the office of Regional Deputy Director of Education Magadh Division, Gaya. The petitioner was supposedly appointed on the said post of clerk along with 18 other persons. Subsequently, all the 19 persons were retrenched from service. Apparently, five out of 19 retrenched employees was subsequently, absorbed in service. It is apparent from memo no. 31 dated 5.1.89. that the petitioner has also annexed list of 19 retrenched persons. The name of the petitioner is at serial no. 14. Subsequently, the petitioner has produced Annexure-3 2 which is a document showing that the petitioner was appointed in pursuance of some order of this Court, in the Project Girls School dated 19.12.1990. The respondents do not dispute Annexure-3 which is subsequent letter of appointment of the petitioner. Annexure-1 will reveal that a committee was formed to examine the appointments made of the so called retrenched employees. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was never noticed by the three man committee. The order relating to termination of the petitioner was issued after considering his case. From the order it would appear that the petitioner was not able to show that he was appointed for three months as a clerk in the District of Gaya. On the basis of the aforesaid fact the petitioner service has been terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all others who were retrenched were subsequently, absorbed in service and are working in the District of Gaya. It is said that the case of the petitioner has been singled out and that too, on the ground that he could not produce the letter showing of his appointment for the period of three months as a clerk in the year 1977. It is obvious on perusal of the writ application and annexed that the petitioner was absorbed vide Annexure-3. It is contended that others who were 3 appointed as a clerk and had remained in service and are still working whereas the petitioner has been singled out. There is no doubt that the appointments made were completely beyond the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the time of so called appointment/absorption of the petitioner no notice was issued. It was merely an attempt to regularize the appointments made in 1977. The order impugned has been passed on the ground that after retrenchment, the petitioner has not been able to produce the letter to show that he was subsequently allowed to join. The petitioner has been in service since 1977 to 2003. He has worked for 26 years. Eighteen others similarly situated have been absorbed. In the circumstances, if the petitioner can show to the authorities the material which would indicate his appointment was made like the eighteen others, the Director Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna may consider his case, if such records are produced before him within 4 months of their production. The writ application is disposed off with the aforesaid observation. Anand Kr. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)