IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8850 of 2002 Maheshwar Prasad Singh, son of Late Kameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village Mehsaurhi, P.S. Khagaria, District- Khagaria …………… Petitioner Versus 1.Chancellor Of Universities, State of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna 2.The Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga 3.The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 4.The Principal Awadh Bihari Sanskrit College, Rahimpur, P.S. & District- Khagaria. …………. Respondents ----------- 3. 21/05/2010 On his own showing, petitioner was engaged in the College only on account of dearth of clerks affecting the work of the College. Thereafter, he somehow managed to continue and on the orders of the Registrar, he was directed to be paid a consolidated amount of Rs.500/- per month on ad hoc basis till further orders. There is no order of any authority regularizing or approving his services. An employee was appointed in the College on compassionate ground, which caused apprehension to the petitioner. Therefore, he moved this Court through C.W.J.C.No.6530 of 1992. In view of the stand of the respondents that by that appointment on compassionate ground - 2 - petitioner was not terminated, the said writ application was disposed of by order dated 21.2.1994, as contained in Annexure-7. Subsequently, petitioner came to this Court for regularization of his services and payment of salary through C.W.J.C.No.6713 of 1996, which was disposed of by order dated 19.8.1997, as contained in Annexure-8. This Court directed the petitioner to file a representation for his arrears of salary and he was given liberty to apply for regular appointment whenever respondents would take steps for filling up of Class III posts. Petitioner’s services were subsequently terminated against which he filed C.W.J.C.No.19 of 1999, which was allowed by order dated 19.1.2000 on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh. Petitioner’s representation has been thereafter considered and by Annexure-17 his services have been terminated. It has been found that the appointment of the petitioner was only provisional and no procedure for appointment was followed in his appointment. - 3 - Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate to this Court that the ground for termination of petitioner’s services was non est or contrary to law. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)