IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.629 of 2008 Kallu Prasad, son of Sri Radhe Mohan Prasad Yadav, resident of Village Alinagar, P.O. & P.S. Biharsharif, District Nalanda…………………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Inspectress of Schools, Bihar, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 5. The Deputy Inspectress of Schools, Bhagalpur 6. The Principal, Government Girls High School, Bhagalpur………………………….Respondents ----------- 3 30.08.2010 From Annexure-3 it appears that petitioner himself submitted an application to the Headmistress of the Government Girls High School, Bhagalpur on 04.01.1997 for his appointment, as he came to know that on account of superannuation of a fourth grade employee, a post had fell vacant. The Headmistress recommended his case to the Director, Human Resources Development Department vide Annexure-4. From Annexure-6 it appears that on the recommendation of the Education Minister on which Inspectress of Schools, Bihar, Patna communicated the Headmistress of the school to examine the 2 case of the petitioner for his regularization in public interest and in view of the recommendation of the Minster and to take steps and communicate it to the Department. Accordingly, by Annexure-7 dated 02.07.1997, the Headmistress of the school regularized the services of the petitioner. Thus, it is apparent that on his own application, petitioner’s appointment was made by the Headmistress and within six months he was regularized also. However, salary having not been paid, petitioner moved this Court and this Court disposed of the writ application, along with other similar writ petitions, with a direction to the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna to consider the case of the petitioners and pass a speaking order in respect of their claims for payment of salary. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner was examined and the impugned order as contained in Anenxure-1 was passed. Before the Director, Secondary Education, petitioner appeared and produced evidence in favour of his case. The authorities were also directed to produce 3 the records and, after examining the same, the Director found that the petitioner had not worked on class IV post from his alleged date of appointment and had not marked his attendance on register meant for class IV employees of the School. The Headmistress had kept a separate attendance register for him to mark his attendance. He found that the case of the petitioner was apparently a case of backdoor entry and hence, he rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of his salary. By referring to Anenxure-18 with the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a large number of employees, who were initially appointed on daily wages, have been regularized in service. That may be so. But the fact remains that admittedly, petitioner was appointed on his own application by the Headmistress without following the procedure laid down for appointment on a public post as per the Rules of the Government and in conformity with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The said 4 regularization as contained in Annexure-7 was apparently passed on the recommendation of the Minister of the Department, who had no authority under law to issue any such direction. Even if it is accepted that other daily wage employees were regularized by the respondents, the same cannot be used as an example to perpetuate the illegality. Protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot be claimed negatively. Therefore, petitioner cannot claim parity with those daily wagers, who were regularized by the respondents as appearing in Annexure-18. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application. The same is dismissed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)