IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12246 of 2011 Ajay Kumar, son of Sri Shyam Sunder Bhagat, resident of Mohalla – Urdu Bazar, P.O. Naya Bazar, P S – Tatarpur, District - Bhagalpur Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, 3. The District Public Education Officer, Bhagalpur. 4. The Programme Officer, Adult Education, Sabour, District – Bhagalpur. 5. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. Non-Formal Education Invigilator, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur. 7. The Director Public Education Directorate, Bihar, Patna. 8. The Additional Director, Non-Formal Education, Bhagalpur. 9. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain. For the State: AC to GP 24. ____ 02. 7.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is seeking parity with likes of petitioners of CWJC No.8418 of 2010 which was filed by a large number of persons and which came to be heard and decided by the learned Single Judge on 21.4.2011. The said order has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit filed today. Origin of the dispute relates to engagement of petitioner and such similarly situated persons in Non-Formal Education Programme which was originally conceived of by the Central Government in the year 1981-82 but implemented through the State Agency. Object of the scheme was to give non formal education to children between 6 and 14 years. The programme lasted till about 2001 and thereafter all those persons who were engaged in the said programme were shown 2 the door. There is a long history behind thereafter, in the sense that many a writ applications came to be filed seeking a direction upon the State Government to absorb these persons and continue them in service. It is only recently that based on the final adjudication made by the High Court the Ministry of HRD, Government of Bihar formulated a policy to absorb some persons on the posts available in the department. The said policy is being implemented but allegation is that it is being done selectively. Claim of the petitioner is that he has a right for absorption on a Class-IV post by virtue of the nature of his initial engagement and there is no difference between him and others who have been absorbed or regularized. Whether the case of the petitioner is covered by the said decision of the High Court rendered in CWJC No.1458 of 1988 and other analogous cases is a bit debatable because in terms of the circular issued by the Principal Secretary, H R D, only persons who were working as Supervisors in the Non Formal Education Programme were to be extended the benefit. Petitioner pleads that the selective kind of relief amounts to discrimination and the case of the present petitioner who was working initially as a Anusewak should also be included in that scheme. Since it is a question of taking a policy decision on the issue, therefore, the Court is reluctant to pass a categorical 3 order in favour of the petitioner as such but if the petitioner moves the Principal Secretary, H R D on this count, taking into consideration the background under which policy has been formulated based on the declaration made by the High Court earlier as well as in the order contained in Annexure-8, petitioner would be informed as to where he stands on this count. Court expects a decision by the Principal Secretary, H R D within a period of three months of the date of filing of an application along with a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed of with above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)