IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7772 of 2006 1. PREM PRAKASH SINGH s/o Ramashre Singh, resident of village- Bank, P.O. Bank, P.S. Akordhi Gola, Distinct- Rohtas. 2. Amob Bihari Singh s/o late Yamuna Singh, resident of village- Dharhara, P.S. Darihat, District- Rohtas. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. The Secretary and Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in- Chief, P.W.D, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Bhojpur Circle . P.W.D Ara. 5. The Executive Engineer , P.W.D.Patna. 6. Mushtakim Ansari, son of not known , posted as Khalasi, Dehri Road Division, Dehri, P.S.D. Dehri, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 7. Mohammad Basir Anwar, s/o not known posted as Khalasi, Road Division, Buxar, Distt- Buxar. ----------- 3 02.12.2010 The two petitioners before this Court were initially appointed in the year 1994 on different posts (Road Roller Operator and Gardener) in Bhojpur Circle, P.W.D., Ara. These appointments were made by the Superintending Engineer, Ara . It appears that the Superintending Engineer, Ara had made several other recruitments as well. Mostly of road roller operators, of which there was immediate need, subsequently in 1995 services of all these persons totaling thirty in number were terminated. Subsequently substantial number of persons were taken back in service when, inter alia, the petitioners were not taken back. They filed a writ petition before this Court being CWJC No. 6445 of 1999. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 28.2.2005 remanding the matter to the Secretary,Road Construction Department with a direction that he should hold an enquiry and give similar treatment to those writ petitioners as others .He should either give the direction virtually 2 to get the petitioner reinstated like the others or if he found that the recruitment was wrongly done as like others, they all should be dismissed. The Secretary examined the matter and passed the impugned order on or about 30.3.2006 ( Annexure 7) . The order apparently does not show as to the consideration of Petitioner’s case on comparable cases of others . The Secretary merely has noted that the petitioners and others were wrongly appointed and as such could not be reinstated. Their representations were accordingly disposed of. Petitioners have come to this Court challenging this order. Obviously this order, prima facie, was not in conformity with the order of this Court and was not the matter remanded to Secretary as this order does not show that the Secretary considered the petitioner’s case as comparable to the others in the group of thirty. Petitioner in rejoinder has brought on record the fact of the others and demanded an equal treatment to them. It now appears that the Secretary after rejecting the case of the petitioner passed a separate administrative order directing the Superintending Engineer to terminate the services of the other persons as well, which order was accordingly issued by the department on 19.7.2006. Those persons challenged those orders before this Court in CWJC No. 11776 of 2006 at this juncture . It is pertinent to point out that now there were two writ petitions, one the present writ petition being CWJC No.7772 of 2006 by the petitioners and the other CWJC No.11776 of 2006 3 by those ,who were dismissed , pursuant to order of the Secretary. Petitioners’ writ petition remained pending while the other was taken up.The other writ petition being CWJC No. 11776 of 2006. This Court examined the matter and disposed of the writ petition by judgment and order dated 25.7.2007. This Court after review of the case law in this regard held that the appointments of those petitioners were not illegal. They were irregular upon this distinction. This Court was of the opinion that those petitioners must be taken back and their services must be regularized. In case the department did not require their services then they were to be treated as retrenched employees. Accordingly while doing so this Court referred to the recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Kernataka versus Uma Devi and others since reported in (2006) 4SCC 1 . Against this judgment as passed in CWJC No. 11776 of 2006, dated 25.7.2007, State preferred Letter Patent Appeal No. 259 of 2008, which was dismissed after hearing the parties on 2nd July 2008 affirming the view taken by the Single Judge in the said writ petition. Petitioners now point out that several persons were then duly regularized in the department, pursuant to orders of this Court .He, thus, prayed that similar treatment must be meted out to the petitioners as well and it is unfortunate that the petitioner’s case was not taken up along with other case,s which were disposed of favorably in the year 2007 itself. 4 Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel, who merely reiterate that the petitioners’ initial appointment being wrong, they have no right. I am of the view that the writ petition must succeed from the facts, as noted above. It is apparent that substantially and materially the case of petitioners of the present writ application is not much different from the case of those persons who had filed CWJC No. 11776 of 2006. In my view they have to receive similar treatment. Petitioners appointment was also not illegal ,as noted by the Secretary himself . It was at best an irregular appointment as turned by the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter I direct the respondent to give the same treatment to the petitioners, which have been given to the other petitioners ,who had moved this Court in CWJC No. 1176 of 2006, which was disposed of on 25.7.2007. The same shall be done within two months of production of a copy this order before the Superintending Engineer P.W.D.Ara. The writ petition stands disposed of. Namita ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)