IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2834 of 2009 Arbind Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3/ 11/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, a peon, is aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.2007 terminating his services. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 20.10.2006 under a policy decision of the State Government, the petitioner came to be regularized on a Class-IV post after due deliberation and consideration by the departmental committee displaying full application of mind to all issues as apparent from the recitals contained in the order itself. He was then given a place of posting also on 27.11.2006. On 7.9.2007 he was given a show cause that the regularization of his services was not in accordance with the prescribed guidelines and his name was below in the panel in order of seniority. The petitioner duly replied to the same when the impugned order dated 24.10.2007 has followed. The show cause notice was vague and disclosed no details of the alleged guidelines or who above him had been left out in the panel. Learned counsel for the State from the 2 counter affidavit submitted that there were certain errors in preparation of the list for regularization with regard to the conditions for the same and due to availability of 21 posts only the petitioner could not have been considered. The Court is satisfied that regularization was ordered after full application of mind by the concerned Committee of the respondents. If the error was found in the consideration, it could certainly be rectified. The petitioner has been given a show cause notice and which has duly been considered. If vacancies were not available on the date that the regularization was ordered it may not be easy for the Court to strike down the termination order. But, the petitioner in his writ petition specifically avers that 3 vacancies have occurred after his termination by reason of the death of one Sheo Nath Ram and the superannuation of Raj Kumar Ram and Raj Banshi Gope. He has also asserted that a junior of his approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.4829/01, disposed on 20.7.2005 who has been retained in service while the petitioner has been ousted. The respondents dealing with the same in the counter affidavit simply state that it needs no comments. The facts therefore stand admitted. The 3 petitioner therefore now has a claim to be considered in accordance with law based on his position in the list of persons to be regularized and availability of vacancies. The respondents shall have to keep in mind that there has to be a difference between those who have been vigilant for the protection of their rights and have moved the Courts in time vis-à-vis those who may be in the higher panel but who do not come to courts in time and are content with the denial of appointment. Let the case of the petitioner be now considered in the light of the present discussion when the impugned order dated 24.10.2007 shall not be an impediment at all. Let this order be complied with within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)