IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10987 of 2008 1. Manoj Kumar son of Sri Indradeo Thakur, resident of Mohalla Neem Pokhar, P.S. Kadirabad, District Darbhanga. 2. Bharti Kumari, wife of Arun Kumar Singh, resident of Mohalla Maripur, P.S. Kazipur Mohammadpur, District Muzaffarpur……..Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga through its Vice-Chancellor. 4. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as the University)…………………..…………………………………….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. 8 3 04.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioners claim to have been appointed in the Central Library of the Lalit Narayan Mithila University, (hereinafter referred to as, „the University‟) sometime in 1984 and 1993. They claim that they have continued in the University on ad hoc basis/daily wages till now and their services, at one time, were 2 provisionally approved and ad hoc payments were made to them. They have continued in the service of the University till passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in view of the notification as contained in Annexure- 15, petitioners have 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, 3 possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to 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 petitioners‟ services were either terminated before 10.04.2006 or their cases have 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 cases of petitioners, as one time measure, for their 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 4 three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. The University in the process shall allow petitioners to file representation with supporting documents in support of their claim for regularisation and, if necessary, allow them to be heard personally in the matter. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)