IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14836 of 2008 1. CHAKRADHAR PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE MADAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-KUBOULI RAM, P.S.- BANGRA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 2. RAJ KISHORE SINGH, S/O LATE BIJALI PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-HARI SHANKAR MANIARI, P.S.-MANIARI, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. …………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, LALIT NARYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 4. THE REGISTRAR, LALIT NARYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, RAM NIRIKSHAN ATMA RAM COLLEGE, SAMASTIPUR. …………RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.15972 of 2008 1. BHARAT SINGH, S/O LATE RAN UDGAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-KHALISPUR, P.S.-SARAIRANJAN, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 2. BALESHWAR RAI, S/O LATE RAM DAYAL SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-BHAGAWANPUR ISSNA, P.S.- UJIYARPUR, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. 3. RAM DAYAL RAI, S/O LATE RAGHUNANDAN RAI, R/O VILLAGE-KALYANPUR, P.S.-KALYANPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 4. JAILAL PASWAN, S/O LATE MISHRI PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE-ASINPUR, P.S.-SAMASTIPUR SADAR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. …………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 4. THE REGISTRAR, LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, RAM NIRIKSHAN ATMA RAM COLLEGE, SAMASTIPUR. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 15 23.09.2011 The six petitioners of these two cases have challenged the orders passed by the University rejecting their claim for 2 regularization. In the first case the impugned orders are Annexure-11 and 11/1 and in the second case the impugned orders are Annexure-11 series. All the six orders in respect of all the six petitioners show that they are cyclostyled and only letter number and name of the petitioners have been filled up separately on dotted lines. It appears that the order was passed in terms of this Court’s order dated 13.04.2007 passed in CWJC No.5774 of 2000. From the order itself it appears that this Court had directed the University to consider the cases of the petitioners, as one time measure, for regularization in terms of the observations of the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka Vs. Uma Devi (3) [2006(2) PLJR (SC) 363, as made in paragraph 44 thereof. The observations of the said paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench has been further clarified by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnatka Vs. M.L.Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247. The Apex Court has made it clear that, in terms of the observations of the Constitution Bench, any employer has to 3 ascertain (i) whether as on the date of the judgment of the Constitution Bench i.e. 10.04.2006 the employee was in service or not, (ii) whether he had remained in service for 10 years or more or not and (iii) his initial appointment was irregular and not illegal. Thus, it is clear that an employer has to come to a definite finding, in case of claim by any employee for his regularization on, all the three aspects. If the findings of the employer come in favour of the employee, in terms of the Constitution Bench his service has to be regularized and no option is left with the employer. In case any of the above parameters are not found satisfied, the services of the employee is to be terminated as the Constitution Bench has clearly held that no employee can be continued on daily wages, adhoc basis or the like for long periods. The impugned order shows that there was no test of individual cases on the basis of the said parameters by the University and only, on a vague report of some Committee that the appointment of all the persons under consideration could not be treated as regular 4 and legal, their claims for regularization has been rejected. It is needless to say that the consideration has to be made on individual basis taking into account the facts and circumstances of employment and continuance of each employee separately and in reference to the documents and materials placed by him for consideration of his case for regularization. The orders impugned in respect of all the six petitioners, as noticed above, are just cyclostyled documents in which the names of each petitioner and the letter number have been filled up separately in respect of each petitioner. The orders are therefore quashed. The University will be at liberty to consider the case of each petitioner separately and independently afresh taking into account all the materials produced by them for consideration of their cases for regularization after giving liberty to each of them to appear before the Vice-Chancellor and present their cases. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)