IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12064 of 2003 MEERA DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI RAM NARAYAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-KALIBARI BINODPUR, P.S. TOWN, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. …..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY-CUM- COMMISSIONER, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, PATNA 5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 6. INSPECTRESS OF SCHOOL-CUM-DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE DISTRICT INSPECTRESS OF SCHOOLS AT KATIHAR POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT KATIHAR 8. THE HEAD MISTRESS, GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL AT KATIHAR WITHIN POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT- KATIHAR ……Respondents ----------- 3. 27.09.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as with regard to the following relief; “That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order as contained in memo no. 689 dated 12.6.2000, issued under the signature of the Deputy Director, Secondary 2 Education, Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner to regularize her services on the post of Scot-maid servant with effect from 5.10.1989 has been rejected and for issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to consider and make payment of arrears of salary, which is due from 1992 till the date on the present post held by her and to grant all other consequential benefits arising out of her regularization on the said post and/or be pleased to pass such other order or orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances stated hereinafter.” this Court would not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Director Secondary Education inasmuch as the claim of regularization does not envisage that any person even appointed on a part time basis can be taken in full time employment. The appointment letter of the petitioner dated 4.8.1992 is itself a testimony to the fact that the petitioner was engaged under special circumstances for doing the work of maid-servant for accompanying the girls from school to their residence and vice- versa on a fixed 3 monthly amount of Rs.50/- and by way of a part time engagement. In that view of the matter any approval of her engagement given by the authority would always be in context of her in part time employment and she could not have claimed the benefit of the government decision dated 22nd May 1993 which was meant only for regularization by way of one time exercise for full time daily wages worker/casual worker. Consequently, when this Court had directed the authority by an order dated 22.9.1999 in the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner being CWJC No. 8023 of 1998 and the authority had found the petitioner not entitled for being regularized in service, no error can be said to have been committed by the said authority in rejecting the case of the petitioner. The concept of regularization also had now changed after the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 wherein it has been held that unless the appointment itself was made 4 by following the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the plea of regularization cannot be allowed. In the present case, as noted above, the engagement of the petitioner has been made only as a part time maid servant and that too for specific purpose and therefore the petitioner’s regularization in service is not permissible in law. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)