CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9773 OF 2003 In the matter of an application under Section-226 of the Constitution of India PRAMOD KUMAR, SON OF LATE MURARI TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE B/12 ANAND BIHAR COLONY ANISHABAD, PATNA------------------(Petitioner) Versus 1. THE BIHAR INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS BOARD, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION COUNCIL, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION COUNCIL, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 4. THE PATNA UNIVERSITY, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA-----------------------------(Respondents) For The Petitioner : M/s Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Dr. Anshuman, Rakesh Narayan Singh, Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar School Examination Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board) which has taken over the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna by virtue of the provisions contained in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council(Repeal) Act, 2007. 2. Petitioner earlier served the Patna University as Correspondence Clerk. He was absorbed in the service of Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna(hereinafter referred to as the Council) vide office order bearing Memo No.801 dated 16.3.1982, 2 Annexure-4. He has filed this writ application for setting aside the order dated 13.6.2003, Annexure-3 passed by the Council, whereunder the services of the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent employer, namely, Patna University. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that absorption of the petitioner in the service of the Council was made under office order dated 16.3.1982, Annexure-4 in anticipation of the approval from the Patna University but till date Patna University has neither approved nor disapproved the absorption of the petitioner, as such, services of the petitioner could not have been repatriated under order dated 13.6.2003, Annexure-11 i.e. after more than 21 years of his absorption in the service of the Council. In this connection it is pointed out that during the period of 21 years while petitioner served the Council to the satisfaction of all concerned, he has been promoted on the post of Assistant Secretary and Deputy Secretary under office order dated 5.12.1988 and 4.7.1994, Annexures-5 and 6. In case petitioner is allowed repatriation to Patna University at this stage he is likely to suffer irreparable loss not only in financial terms but also of status, which shall be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3 4. Counsel for the Board has opposed the submission. She states that absorption of the petitioner in the service of the Council was subject to approval of the parent employer and as the approval did not come, the authorities of the Council chose to repatriate the petitioner as it was difficult for the Council to continue the petitioner on the promoted post as his status in the Council has not yet been confirmed for the failure of his parent employer to grant and communicate its approval to the absorption of the petitioner in the Council. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Board as also having noticed the fact that the parent employer of the petitioner has not opposed the absorption of the petitioner in the Council for about 21 years, I do not see any valid reason to cancel the absorption of the services of the petitioner in the Council made under office order dated 16.3.1982, Annexure-4 and the order dated 13.6.2003, Annexure- 11 cancelling the absorption is accordingly, set aside.. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. Patna High Court Dated 1st April, 2010 NAFR/Rajesh ( V. N. Sinha, J.)