IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7438 of 2010 Ranjit Kumar, son of Late Lal Kishore Prasad, resident of Mohalla & P.O. Chand Chaura, Khwagali, P.S. Civil Lines, District Gaya……………………………………………………………………..….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director General of Home Guard, Chhaju Bagh, Patna. 6. Commandant, Home Guard, Special Battalion, Bhagalpur. 7. Commandant, Home Guard, Chhaju Bagh, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ojha, A.C. to A.A.G. No VI. 2 14.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. The primary challenge of the petitioner in this writ application is to a decision of Three-Member Committee constituted under the orders of this Court passed in a batch of cases for consideration of cases of employees for their regularization in terms of paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of 2 Karnataka and others Versus Uma Devi (3) and others reported in 2006 (2) PLJR 366 (SC). From the decision of Three-Member Committee, it appears that information sought for and was received from the Headquarters of the Home Guard Division in respect of service history of the petitioner. The information which was received did support the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as Volunteer Home Guard, but it mentioned that appointment letter was not available. Against the query in the check slip in respect of sanction of posts and availability of vacancy, no information was supplied by the Headquarters and only a note was made that appointment letter was not available. However, only on this basis the Committee came to the conclusion that the post was not sanctioned and the vacancy was not available. Moreover, from the decision of the Committee, it appears that, in respect of paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment, which requires consideration of 3 cases of employees working for more than ten years, it read into it that for each year, required period of working must be more than 240 days. This is clearly absent in paragraph 44 of the said judgment. From the subsequent order of review as contained in Annexure-18, it appears that, except for the year 2000 in which petitioner is said to have worked only 109 days, in all years he has been found to have worked for more than 240 days. However, his review was rejected on the same grounds. Ultimately, petitioner was removed from service in 2009 by Annexure- 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to a recommendation made by the Commandant General, Home Guard Division dated 10.05.2005, as contained in Annexure-9, addressed to the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar. This recommendation shows that the Commandant General, after verification of the records, had found that name of the petitioner was included in the recommendation of the Divisional Commandant 4 for regularization of 290 Home Guards. Out of those 290 Home Guards, 268 had moved this Court and in light of the orders of this Court, out of 268, 236 were regularized. The list of left over Home Guards contained the name of the petitioner also. The Commandant General has expressed his opinion that only because the petitioner kept on waiting for his regularization by the respondents and did not move this Court, his case was not considered. He also expressed his opinion that the petitioner is fit to be regularized. Learned counsel submits that since this report was submitted by the Commandant General after verification of the records, the Committee should have considered it and, if it had any doubt in respect of the recommendations made by this letter, it ought to have called for the original records and examined the same. Instead of doing that, only on the basis of lack of information available in the check slip submitted by the Headquarters of Home Guard Division, the Committee has rejected the 5 case of the petitioner and his review, as contained in Annexure-22, has also been rejected by a cryptic order. Counter affidavits have been filed and learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was no record in respect of appointment of the petitioner as Volunteer Home Guard in 1978 and his continuance till 1983 when he was selected and deputed under Bhagalpur Special Battalion. After hearing the parties and considering the documents available on record, this Court finds that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. When one recommendation of the Commandant General, Home Guard Division was already available on record dealing with the case of the petitioner, the Committee was required to consider the same at least. This the Committee has not done and, only on the basis of lack of information in the check slip submitted by the Headquarters of the Home Guard Division, the case of the petitioner has been found not covered by the said paragraph 44 of the Constitution 6 Bench judgment. In the circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate that the case of the petitioner should be reconsidered by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home. The petitioner has also challenged the order of his termination, as contained in Annexure-20. Since the termination was a follow-up action to the decision of the Committee as contained in Annexure-17, the same also requires reconsideration. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Bihar, Patna to consider the case of the petitioner afresh with due opportunity to the petitioner to appear before him. He shall also call for the original records, as may be available with the Home Guard Division in respect of petitioner and shall consider other reports and recommendations as may be produced by the petitioner. In particular, he shall call for the said recommendation of the Divisional Commandant by which he had recommended for regularization of 290 Home Guards sometime 7 in 1990. If the list enclosed with the said letter of the Divisional Commandant contains the name of the petitioner also, the Principal Secretary shall be obliged to apply his mind as to why the petitioner should also not be given same treatment, as was given to 236 Home Guards of the list, who were later on regularized, notwithstanding that petitioner was not a party before this Court in the said writ application preferred by 236 Home Guards. The decision in this regard shall be taken by the Principal Secretary preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Final decision shall be taken on merits and the orders as impugned in this case shall not come in the way of the Principal Secretary in passing fresh orders if he finds the case of the petitioner fit for regularization. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)