IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15646 of 2009 1. Gangesh Tiwary S/O Late Bharath Tiwary Vill.- Chamahi, P.O.- Kapoor Pakri, P.S.- Shikarganj, Distt.- East Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Health Commissioner Cum Secretary Department Of Health Medical Education And Family Welfare, Bihar At Patna 3. The Director In Chief Health Services, Government Of Bihar At Patna 4. The Collector East Champaran At Motihari 5. The District Malaria Officer East Champaran At Motihari 6. The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer East Champaran At Motihari ----------- 3. 18.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on seasonal basis in the year 1991 and continues in that capacity. Earlier in the year 2005-06, an Advertisement was published and a panel was prepared in which his name was included but violating the merit position persons junior to him have been appointed while the petitioner kept waiting for regularization. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. But counsel for the State from Annexure-2 to the writ application submits that from the own documents of the petitioner it does not appear that he is in service after the year 2000. Be that as it may, a seasonal employee does not hold a regular post and the question of his 2 regularization does not arise. Even otherwise if a panel was prepared in 2005-06 and the merit position was violated by making appointments contrary to law, the petitioner should have either impleaded such persons as party respondents or questioned it when such appointments were made and not so belatedly as in the year 2009. In any event of the matter no appointments can be made today from a panel of 2005-06 violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India by shutting out a whole new work force which may have become eligible for consideration in the meantime. If the respondents propose to make fresh appointments and publish a fresh advertisement and the petitioner applies in response to the same, naturally he has a right to be considered in accordance with law. Issues of age relaxation, weightage for past work experience and/or reserving a certain number of posts for persons like him are more of policy matters left for the respondents to decide, but in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)