IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17240 of 2009 1. UMA SHANKAR KESHRI S/O LATE SHEO KUMAR KESHRI ACCOUNT CLERK, SONE CANAL DIVISION, BUXAR, P.S.&DISTT-BUXAR, R/O AMLATOLI BUXAR, P.S. & DISTT-BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNEMENT OF BIHAR,SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DEHRI,PS.DEHRI, DISTT-ROHTAS 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL CIRCLE BUXAR 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SONE CANAL DIVISION, BUXAR 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS 7. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BUXAR ----------- 2. 8.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2009, shifting his date of first time bound promotion and directing consequent recovery from the date it has originally been given. The petitioner was appointed in the work charge establishment on 1.5.1974 and absorbed in regular service on 15.8.1981. He was then given his first time bound promotion reckoning his service from 1974, which has now been modified to reckon from 1984 and is the bone of controversy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been regularized with effect from 1.5.1974 by order dated 15.8.1981. The period spent in the work charge establishment has to be calculated for grant of time bound promotion under notification dated 27.3.1987. By 2 departmental instruction dated 23.8.2007, he was not required to pass the accounts examination for such promotion. Counsel for the State urges that regularization is always prospective in nature. There can be no retrospective regularization. The notification dated 27.3.1987 is prospective in nature from the date of issuance and shall have no application to the petitioner. Regularization has been held to be prospective in nature. There can be no retrospective regularization. What can follow is a declaration of an appointment otherwise only irregular and not illegal to confer the benefit from the date of appointment. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on 1.5.1974, after open advertisement and merit selection so as to give him the benefit of appointment from that date. The notification dated 27.3.1987 is explicitly prospective. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner to which he duly replied. The petitioner has not been able to persuade this Court to hold that the order of regularization dated 15.8.1981 operates from 1.5.1974. The second ground in the impugned order that he had not cleared the departmental accounts examination and the effect of the notification dated 23.8.2007 losses its relevance and does not remain a relevant issue any more so far as the impugned order is concerned. In the discussions aforesaid that regularization can 3 be only prospective, the notification dated 27.3.1987 being prospective, this Court finds no merit to interfere with the impugned order dated 14.7.2009 to that extent. It is next submitted that the petitioner proposes to represent with regard to the aspect of recovery consequent to the shifting of the date of the time bound promotion. It is urged that there has been no misrepresentation on part of the petitioner. In view of that submission, this Court refrains from making any observations on that aspect of the matter but only observes that notwithstanding the order dated 14.11.2009, if the petitioner represents to that limited extent nothing in the present order shall be construed as precluding the respondents from fresh application of mind to that extent only. The application is dismissed except to the extent indicated. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)