IMPORTANT POINTS
Regularisation can be claimed while in service, not after termination.
Appointment for a temporary period comes to an end at the end of that period. Grant of extension to work for some more period cannot make an employee permanent. Such employee cannot claim regularization.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) The appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No.1760 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein by setting aside the order dated 08.05.2012 of the Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.4247 of 2012 which allowed the appellants’ writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the State to regularize the services of the appellants on the post of “Muharrirs” .

3) The controversy involved in the appeal is confined to short facts, which, however, need mention here-in-below to appreciate the same.

4) The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’ writ petition by allowing the intra court appeal filed by the respondents herein and reversing the order of the Single Judge which had allowed the appellants’ writ petition by issuing a mandamus directing the State(respondents) to regularize the appellants on the post of “Muharrir”.

5) Eight (8) persons were appointed on the post of “Muharrir” in the Office of Collector, Saran Chpara (Bihar) in the year 1987-88 by the State (Collector). These eight persons included present four (4) appellants herein. The appointment of these eight persons was made as temporary appointment for a period of three months. These appointments were made by the authority concerned by taking recourse to the powers under Rule 57-A of the Bihar Certificate Manual, the instructions issued under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

6) These temporary appointments were made for disposal of several pending certificate cases, which could not be disposed of for want of adequate hands available in the office. However, the services of the eight persons were extended for sometime by issuing extension orders. It was up to the year 1991.

7) These eight Muharrirs filed a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 5142 of 1991) in the High Court at Patna claiming therein a relief for their regularization in services as Muharrir. By order dated 03.04.2001, the Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the writ petitioners to submit their representation to the Competent Authority to enable them to examine their grievances on the question of regularization in service.

8) The writ petitioners (8) felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeal. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal (L.P.A. No.434 of 2001) by order dated 28.07.2007 but further made pertinent observations and, in consequence, also issued directions.

9) In the opinion of the Division Bench, when the services of the writ petitioners had come to an end on 03.06.1991 and 19.06.1991 and when these two orders were not stayed by the Writ Court (Single Judge) in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners then how the writ petitioners could continue in services even as daily wagers thereafter and how some of the writ petitioners were able to get their services regularized from 10.10.2006. The Division Bench, therefore, while expressing their concern directed the State Vigilance Department to look into the matter and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

10) As mentioned above, in the meantime, out of eight Muharrirs, the services of five Muharrirs including one more person by name Mr. Sugriev Singh were regularized by order dated 10.10.2006.

11) The writ petitioners, whose services could not be regularized, felt aggrieved and filed SLP in this Court. This Court dismissed the SLP and granted liberty to the petitioners to file representations to the concerned authority for ventilating of their grievance.

12) It is not in dispute that the Competent Authority, by order dated 15.01.2012, rejected the representation made by the appellants stating therein that since their services had already com