IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.228 of 2009 SANJAY KUMAR VERMA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3/ 23/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.7.2008 by which his claim for regularization has been rejected. The petitioner has specifically asserted in paragraph-11 of the writ application that he was appointed on a vacant sanctioned post, confirmed in enquiry. Dealing with the same the respondents in their counter affidavit at paragraph-15 state that it is a matter of record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner was appointed in an ad hoc capacity against a vacant sanctioned post and he has continued on that post for over ten long years, he has to be considered for regularization as held in 2010(9) SCC 247 (STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Versus M.L. KESARI AND OTHERS). Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was appointed for a period of three months only, but somehow managed to continue in service. The appointment was contrary to the law. It was not a 2 permanent appointment vesting in him the right to continue on the post. The last submission on behalf of the State is that the Supreme Court has given such directions with regard to Class-IV posts while the petitioner holds a Class-III post. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has placed strong reliance on (2010) 9 SCC 247 ( STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VERSUS M.L. KESARI AND OTHERS) at paragraph-7 which reads as follows:- “7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against “regularization” enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.” 3 The services of the petitioner appear to have been terminated finally on 26.7.2006 on grounds of an irregular appointment. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.10449/06 disposed on 30.5.2007 directing consideration of his case in light of the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Now that the judgement of Uma Devi (Supra) has been explained in M.L. Kesari’s case (Supra) and the continuity of which has to be appreciated, the claim of the petitioner is required to be considered in that light and there shall also be a continuity in the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No.10449/06 when the respondents have rejected his claim on 20.7.2008. The matter is therefore remanded to Respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in light of the discussion contained in the case of M.L. Kesari (supra). Let the same be done within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that in the event that the respondents find justification in the claim of the petitioner, the benefits shall necessarily have to be prospective. However, if the petitioner represents for 4 any limited purpose, the Court expects the respondents to consider the same. The orders for termination of the petitioner noticed hereinabove cannot therefore be any impediment in consideration of his claim for regularization. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)