IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2075 of 2011 RABINDRA PRASAD, son of Late Sri Baidyanath Prasad Sah, resident of Village – Patahi, Hari, PS Sadar, District Muzaffarpur ......Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 4. The Deputy Director (Secondary Education), Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi .......Respondents ----------- 02- 3/2/2011 Heard Mr. Chakrapani for the petitioner, and Mr. Shashi Bhushan, learned Assistant Counsel to Govt. Pleader no.15. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.9.2010 (Annexure 17), passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, whereby his appeal has been rejected and the order dispensing with his service has been upheld. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that one Baidyanath Prasad Sah was a permanent class III employee. He was on earned leave for a period of three months towards the end of 1990 and the beginning of 1991. The petitioner was appointed for a period of three months as a stop-gap arrangement on 2 14.12.90 (Annexue 2). After expiry of the period of three months, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by order dated 16.3.91 (Annexure 3). He was thereafter re- appointed. In view of his officiation for the said period of three months, his services were regularized by order dated 5.2.93 (Annexure 5). The Establishment Committee took a decision at its meeting held on 27.2.93 (Annexure 6), that the services of such persons were regularized. This was followed by the consequential order dated 26.3.94 (Annexure 7). Thereafter show-cause notice was issued to him to give the details of his appointment. On a consideration of the materials shown by the petitioner, his services were dispensed with on the ground that there is no provision for ad-hoc appointment for the period during which the permanent incumbent is on earned leave. Secondly, such ad-hoc appointment cannot be made the basis for a regular appointment whereafter his services were dispensed with. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring appeal which has been rejected by the impugned order. It is thus evident that the petitioner was appointed for a brief period of three months to officiate when the permanent incumbent was on earned leave. The learned 3 Director has rightly held that there is no provision for appointment from the back-door for such a purpose. Secondly, he is equally right in stating in the impugned order that it cannot be the basis of regularization of service. It appears to us that it was not only a case of mere back-door entry, but was much more than that. It seems to be case of well-orchestrated and organized conspiracy to provide permanent employment to the petitioner. 3. We do not find any fault with the impugned order. The writ petition accordingly is dismissed. mrl ( S K Katriar )