IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14047 of 2004 CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE BINDESHWARI PRASAD, PEON, POSTED IN FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. ………… PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (C.I.D.), OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (C.I.D.), OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CRIME) (C.I.D.), OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. SRI VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN, DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. ………… RESPONDENTS. ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER: - MR. S.R.PANDEY, ADVOCATE MR. AMIT ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE: - MR. SATISH KUMAR SINHA, AC TO SC 1. 06/ 04.03.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State-Respondent. Petitioner’s prayer in the present writ application is for a direction to the respondents to regularize him on the post of Peon and also for making payment of arrears of salary, which has not been paid to him since May, 1998. The case of the petitioner as disclosed in the writ application is that on 27.10.1989 the Additional – cum- Incharge Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna had issued an order, whereby he was 2 appointed as daily wager on a daily wage of Rs.12/- per day. On perusal of the order it transpires that the appointment of petitioner as a daily wager was to be terminated even without any notice to him at any point of time. Subsequently vide order dated 30.12.1995 contained in Memo No. 45 he was appointed for Six months on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.775-1025. However, this six months appointment was never extended but he continued up to 1998 when a show cause notice was issued to him for asking him that why he should not be terminated from his post on which he is continuing as he was appointed without following the legal procedure for appointment. The post was not advertised, no interview was held and the competent authority had not issued any appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. The show cause submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and finally he was terminated. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWJC No. 539 of 1999, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization along with others giving him due weightage of past 3 experience provided the same is found to be satisfactory. After disposal of the writ application the petitioner’s case was not considered fit for regularization, which gave rise of filing of the present writ application. What is apparent from the counter affidavit that the person, who had issued Annexure-2 i.e. appointment letter for six months in favour of the petitioner was not Director, who is only empowered to appoint or give promotion to such employees. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the so called appointment of the petitioner on the basis of Annexure-2 was bad from its very inception, giving no right to the petitioner for demanding his regularization on this post. Besides, the statement made in the counter affidavit, in the supplementary counter affidavit it has been stated that during the pendency of this writ application petitioner has filed another writ application i.e. CWJC No. 14165 of 2009 for almost similar reliefs, which was dismissed. The petitioner, thereafter, filed L.P.A. No. 1591 of 2009, that was also dismissed. Again the petitioner filed Civil Review No. 178 of 2010, that was also dismissed on 15.9.2010. 4 In the given facts and the circumstance of the case, I find that the merit of the petitioner’s case has already been decided in his earlier writ application, which has been affirmed by the LPA Bench and also by the order passed in the Review Application. On all these counts, I do not find any merit in this application. It is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)