IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.302 of 2009 KAPILESHWAR BHAGAT S/O LATE SONE LAL BHAGAT R/O VILLAGE-MAHMADA, P.S. PUSA, DISTRICT-SAMAS- TIPUR. --APPELLANT Versus 1. LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY THROUGH IT’S REGISTRAR, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 2. VICE-CHANCELLOR, LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. --RESPONDENTS 10 21.06.2011 The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 18th February, 2009 of the learned single Judge passed in CWJC no. 2332 of 2009. The appellant was aggrieved by the action of the respondent-University in terminating his services which was made on 20th April, 1985 conducted by the Selection Committee of Uma Pandey College, Pusa. He was appointed on the vacant post of Peon (Annexure-1). On 28th April, 1985 the appellant joined as Peon. On 12th April, 2004 the details of the service record of the appellant was sent by the Professor In-charge to the University vide letter no.66 of 2004. On 05th July, 2006 service record of the appellant in prescribed proforma was sent to the respondent 2 University. On 16th June, 2007 the details of the service record was called for from the Principal (Annexure-2) vide letter no. 13159-13226 / 2006. On 20th June, 2007 vide Reference no.158 / 07 the Principal of the College sent the detail of the service record of the appellant in prescribed proforma along with all relevant papers (Annexure-3). The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the writ petitioner on the post of Peon from the date of appointment on 28th April, 1985. The learned Judge has dismissed the writ application with observation that the petitioner’s appointment by the Principal of the Constituant College was made one by the authority who had no jurisdiction to do so. It has also been further held that such appointment cannot be inured. Being aggrieved by such direction the present appeal has been filed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has brought to the notice of the Court Annexure- 1. As per the Annexures, annexed to the writ petition, the service record was also called from the concerned College by the University. The learned counsel appearing on 3 behalf of the University has submitted that the appointment of the appellant was irregular in nature and, hence, it cannot be regularised. The aforesaid statement cannot have any force and for the reasons that Annexure-1 is a vague one or forged one in absence of which this court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the University that the Principal is not a competent authority. Annexure-1 shows that the Principal has merely issued the letter of recommendation of the Selection Committee and the constitution of the Selection Committee was also not disputed by the University. Under the circumstances the learned single Judge ought not to have held that the appointment cannot innure to the benefit or right for regularization to the appellant herein. With the aforesaid order, the order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and, accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed with no cost. AAhmad/ (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)