IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13580 of 2005 KRISHNA CHANDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE GOVIND PRASAD, RESIDENT OF QUARTER NO. Q/92 , ROAD NO. 7, MAGADH COLONY, P.S. MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE, DISTRICT GAYA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, BHOJPUR AT ARRAH THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR. 4. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, BHOJPUR AT ARRAH. 5. THE REGISTRAR, VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH. 6. ADIL UMAR, SON OF LATE M. UMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALBATRA, P.S. ARA TOWN, DISTRICT BHOJPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS S.O., VEER KUNWAR SINH UNIVERSITY, ARA. 7. YAMUNA PRASAD, SON OF LATE PARMESHWAR SAO, RESIDENT OF SHIV SHAKTI COLONY, P.S. CIVIL LINE, GAYA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS S.O., VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :- Mr. R.K. Sinha No. 2, Advocate For respondent no. 6&7 :- Mr. A. Amanullah, Advocate Mr. A.K. Prasad, Advocate For V.K.S. University :- Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate ----------- 5 7.2.2011 The petitioner is claiming that his date of regularization should be reckoned from 16.3.1970 and not from 15.3.1973 by the Veer Kunwar Singh University, Bhojpur at Arrah. Petitioner was appointed as a seasonal worker along with others by office orders contained in Annexures 1, 2, 3 and 4 for a period of six months, four months, two months and the like. After the said period, his services were terminated. Finally the petitioner came to be appointed vide Annexure-5 dated 15.3.1973. The order of appointment of the petitioner and ten others indicate as follows: 2 fnup;kZ fyfidksa ds nl in :0 105&155 ds osrueku esa fnukad 15 ekpZ 1973 esa l`ftr fd;s tkrs gSa ,oa ,d in igys ls fjDr gSA bu X;kjg inksa ij fuEufyf[kr lkef;d lgk;dksa dh vLFkk;h fu;qfDr fnukad 15 ekpZ 1973 ls dh tkrh gSA It is obvious that in the year 1973 when the petitioner was appointed, it was done by creating post in the University, thereby indicating, that in fact prior to that, sanctioned posts were not available in the University. After the transfer of M.V. College, Buxar to the Veer Kunwar Singh University, the University recognized those persons who were working in the College and shifted their date of regularization to the date on which they were appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause of action arose on the date on which the persons working on non-teaching post in M.V. College, Buxar were regularized by shifting their date to the initial date of appointment. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the intervener-respondents who would be affected inasmuch that they would go down in the seniority list if the petitioner’s date of regularization was shifted to 1970. The stand of the intervener- respondents is that the writ application has been filed after much delay. I do not think that this writ can be thrown out on the ground of delay and latches as the cause of action accrued to the petitioner after the University took its decision on 8.8.2002 shifting the date of regularization of non-teaching staff to the initial date of appointment. In support of the aforesaid fact, it is 3 submitted that the confirmation of the services of all those persons who were transferred from Magadh University to the Veer Kunwar Singh University was made on 25.1.1993. The gradation list was prepared on 15.7.1998. Apportionment between the two Universities was finally decided on 24.7.1999 and the provisional gradation list was issued on 30.5.2002. At all the aforesaid stages, the petitioner did not raise any protest with respect the date on which he was treated to be regularized in the University service, as such he cannot raise these issues now and the claim is stale and an afterthought. The crux of the matter lies in the fact that the posts on which the employees of the College were working were regular sanctioned posts, whereas the post on which the petitioner was treated to be initially appointed was in fact created by the University on the date on which the petitioner was appointed by Annexure-5 referred to above. Besides this, a distinction has to be made between a person working as seasonal worker, on temporary basis for a period of six months, four months and the like, and a person appointed on regular basis. Seasonal workers are appointed on temporary basis, with break in services and such a period cannot be held at part even with those persons who are working on temporary basis/daily wages, much less with regular appointees. The cases of those two categories aforesaid cannot be considered to be similar and, therefore, there is no question of discriminating between the two categories. As such I find that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case that their 4 services should be regularized after taking into account the services rendered as seasonal employees. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in this writ application and it is dismissed as such. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)