Regularisation of services is not supported when the initial appointment is unauthorized, and the petitioner has forged documents and crossed the age-bar for entry into government service.

1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, learned Standing Counsel No. 15 for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order bearing memo no. 2483, dated 26.8.2000 (Annexure-1), issued under the signature of respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Hajipur (Vaishali), whereby the service of the petitioner as a Clerk has been dispensed with.The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned order.

2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed on a purely temporary and ad hoc basis for a period of three months. His services were extended from time to time covering 15 years till such time the impugned order was passed, whereby his services have been dispensed with and recovery of salary for the period of 15 years has been ordered for. He has, in the meanwhile, been given the benefit of time bound promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case for regularisation is covered by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others, reported in [(2006)4 S.C.C. 1: 2006(2) P.L.J.R. (SC)363]. He has also relied on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2007(2) P.L.J.R. 509 (Ashutosh Kumar and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others), whereby the follow-up action has been indicated. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioners case is not covered by Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others (supra), and is also hit by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and Others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, reported in (2007)1 S.C.C. 575.

3. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The admitted position is that the petitioner was initially appointed on a purely temporary and ad hoc basis for a period of three months without advertisement and publicity. He was given extension of service from time to time covering a period of 15 years by the functionaries who were completely unauthorised to grant such extension and also for the reason that the State Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms had issued clear direction not to make such ad hoc and temporary appointment. It further appears that the petitioner was initially appointed at a stage when he had. crossed the age-bar for entry in the Government service. It further appears that he had forged his appointment letter. In that view of the matter, the petitioners case is not covered by the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) (supra).

4. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.