IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.286 of 2011 SADANAND PATHAK, SON OF LATE JIVANAND PATHAK, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-PURANIGANJ, POLICE STATION-MUNGER, DISTRICT-MUNGER. …………………………………APPELLANT/PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT REGISTRAR-DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, MUNGER, DISTRICT-MUNGER. 3. THE DISTRICT ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, MUNGER, DISTRICT-MUNGER. ………………………...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 12.5.2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The Writ Court has considered the relevant facts in proper perspective. It appears from the submissions that in 1996 petitioner’s name was removed from the register of Additional/ Extra Clerks working in Sub Registry, Munger, on account of allegation of misconduct leading to criminal case. Subsequently, such posts, which were not in a regular establishment, were abolished in the year 2003 and after his acquittal at the appellate stage in 2008, the appellant wanted reinstatement in service. Those who were in service at the 2 time of abolition of the post of Additional/Extra Clerks appear to have been given chance of being absorbed in regular establishment as L.D.C. but there is now a complete ban on appointment as Additional/ Extra Clerks. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he must be given the same treatment as the Additional/ Extra Clerks, who have been absorbed subsequently. The Writ Court has held that petitioner cannot belong to the same class who had rendered satisfactory service and were working at the time when the policy decision giving an opportunity of absorption was affected. He was kept away from consideration for the reasons which cannot be attributed to the authorities and now when the post itself is not available, there can be no question of directing for his reinstatement in service on the post of Additional/Extra Clerk. We do not find any good reason to direct the authorities to absorb the petitioner on the post which was not in regular establishment, created no rights and stands abolished. In the facts of the case, in our view, the order of the Writ Court does not require any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. It goes without saying that as observed by the Writ 3 Court, if the appellant files a representation that may be considered by the authorities considering the job requirements and availability of vacancies. P.S. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)