IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8677 of 2004 Prem Kumar Jha, Son of Shri Rudra Narayan Jha, resident of Village-Nipania, P.O.-Barauni, P.S.-Phulwaria, District-Begusarai, at present working as Office Assistant in Deochand College, Hazipur, P.S.-Hazipur, District-Vaishali. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, having its Head Office at Muzaffarpur, through its Registrar. 5. Vice-Chancellor, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 6. Registrar, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 7. Principal, Deochand College, Hazipur, District-Vaishali. –Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv. For the University : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Adv. For the State : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Adv. ----------- 14 09.05.2011 The petitioner has come to this Court against the order dated 23.11.2002 passed by the Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar (Annexure-26). By the said impugned order, the services of the petitioner in the college have been refused to be regularized. Counter affidavits and rejoinders have been filed, with consent of parties, the matter has been heard for disposal at this stage itself. On behalf of petitioner, it is submitted that a reference to the detail enquiry report, as submitted by the Registrar of the University to the State Government, would show that petitioner was appointed in 1980 by the Governing Body of Deochand College, Hazipur, which was an affiliated college of the Bihar University. In 1981 the said college was made a constituent college of Bihar - 2 - University. At the time of take over of college the list of employees disclosed included the name of the petitioner. Petitioner was on sanctioned post. Prior to petitioner’s appointment there was advertisement and appointment letter was also duly issued which was within staffing pattern though not formally sanctioned. It was also reported that petitioner had been working since 1980 up to 2002 but had not been paid his wages. It is also not in dispute that since the year 2000 as per the attendance register of Class-III & IV employees of the previous year have been taken away unauthorisedly by the earlier Principal and was not traceable. Upon these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal conclusion that would be drawn is that petitioner’s employment was regular. The only ground for the order of the State Government in not accepting the same, as found in Annexure-26, is that the register and the Principal of college could not give the necessary information in the prescribed performa. It is then stated that no papers could be produced by the Principal with regard to advertisement, constitution of the selection committee, interview or panel prepared. At this stage itself, I may point out that a reference to Registrar’s letter would itself show that the copy of advertisement issued was supplied by the petitioner himself. The copy of petitioner’s appointment letter was there itself. The fact that at the time of take over in 1981 petitioner was found working was also there. The Registrar’s letter admitting no payment for the entire period was also - 3 - there which were all ignored to be taken note of. What remains is that on failure of the Principal to produce some of the papers in respect of Petitioner’s appointment, the petitioner’s appointment was treated to be invalid. The fact remains that petitioner was undisputedly found in employment as per the list prepared when the college was taken over in the year 1981. No one denied the authenticity of the advertisement or petitioner’s appointment letter. No one denied the fact that the petitioner had been working. Thus, in my view, at best it could be said that there were some procedural infirmities which will not go to the root of the matter so as to invalidate his appointment as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others Versus Uma Devi (3) and others since reported in (2006)4 Supreme Court Cases 1. There, it was clearly held that where persons worked for a considerable period (in the present case it would be over three decades by now) and their appointments were irregular and not illegal, the State should regularize their appointments. From the facts noted above, it virtually stands established that the petitioner has worked for almost three decades without remuneration rather in the hope of regularization and remuneration. A democratically welfare Government is not hoped to deny the legitimate aspiration of people, especially when they have worked. In fairness to the counsel for the University who has filed a supplementary counter affidavit today stating that the Principal of the college informed that the petitioner has not filed any - 4 - representation before him and he is not present for his duty. All that I can say is that it hardly stands reason that a person whose writ petition is pending in the Court for nearly a decade would not approach the authorities. Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly disputes the position as held out by the Principal stating that the Principal is a new Principal having joined in 2009 and had never taken such a stand before that petitioner was not working. In my view, looking to the facts in totality, it is clear that petitioner could not be blamed for records not be produced by the Principal. The fact remaining that petitioner, in fact, was selected, appointed and working. This is not disputed by anyone even the State. In that view of the matter, I am left with no option but to direct the University to pass appropriate orders for regularization of the services of the petitioner and the State to accept/approve the same. Petitioner would be entitled to his wages in respect of the period as per record he has worked. It is expected that the University would pass appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of production of copy of this order before the Registrar of the University. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)