IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13936 of 2008 Vidya Sagar Rai, S/o Sri Bhagwat Rai, resident of village Birpur, P.S. Raghopur, District Vaishali, presently residing at G.D. College Campus, Begusarai…………………………………………………………..…………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga 4. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. 5. The Principal, Ganesh Dutta College, Begusarai……………………………………………………………….Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Yugal Kishore, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate For University: M/s Partha Sarthy, N. Nirvikar, Ritesh Kumar No.1 & S.K. Jha, Advocates For State: G.A. 7 2 04.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner claims to have been appointed in Ganesh Dutt College, Begusarai (hereinafter referred to as, „the College‟) sometime in 1970. He claims that he has continued in the College on ad hoc basis/daily wages till now and his services, at one time, were provisionally approved and ad hoc payments were made to him. He has produced a letter of the 2 Principal of the College, annexed as Annexure 5 which shows that he is still continuing in the service of the College. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the said letter of the Principal, petitioner has a right to be considered for regularisation in terms of paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006(2) PLJR 363 (SC). The direction contained in paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Uma Devi (3) (supra) has further been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari reported in 2010 (9) Supreme Court Cases 247 = AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2587. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment in the case of M.L. Kesari (supra), the Apex Court has held as follows: “…….The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.04.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to 3 be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one- time measure.” There is nothing on record to show that petitioner‟s services were either terminated before 10.04.2006 or his case has been considered by the University as one time measure in the light of the observations of the Constitution Bench in the said paragraph and within the parameters laid down therein and final orders have been passed. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the University to consider the case of petitioner, as one time measure, for his regularisation, or otherwise, in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in the said paragraph and within the parameters laid down therein positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt / 4 production of a copy of this order. The University in the process shall allow petitioner to file representation with supporting documents in support of his claim for regularisation and, if necessary, allow him to be heard personally in the matter. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)