Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
CWJC No.17957 of 2015
(12.12.2025)
Atal Bihari Singh ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 – Sections 10(6) and 35 (2) – Absorption – Cancellation – Petitioner was appointed on post of Peon on the basis of staffing pattern – Case of petitioner is similar to persons whose services have been regularized – Impugned notification does not disclose any individualized examination of petitioner's case, does not point to any infirmity in three member committee's report, and does not allege any fraud, or suppression of material fact by petitioner – Mechanical recall of regularization of petitioner is devoid of any reasons – This is contrary to settled principle that order conferring a benefit after due verification cannot be rescinded without disclosing specific grounds relatable to beneficiary – To treat that single inconsistent age disclosure as conclusive against petitioner and to deny him benefit of regularization, despite authentic School Leaving Certificate pointing otherwise and despite decades of recognized service, would amount to elevating a trivial clerical lapse to a determinative factor – Petitioner cannot be subjected to selective discrimination merely because his regularization order was passed within a limited time window later questioned by authorities – Petitioner shall be treated as regularized with effect from 01.06.2013 and shall be entitled for 50 per cent of salary and other allowances since 01.06.2013, coupled with notional benefits – Writ Application allowed. (Paras 35, 36, 42, 50 to 56)
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 03.09.2015, contained in Memo No. Legal-108/12-826/Estab/15, issued under the signature of the Vice Chancellor of the Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara (herein after referred to as ‘the University’), by which the representation of the petitioner, filed in light of the order, dated 01.07.2014, passed by this Court in CWJC No. 20184 of 2014, has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the notification, contained in Memo No. 1050/ESTAB/2013, dated 30.07.2013, whereby the absorption of the petitioner on the post of Peon, in Maharaja College, Ara (in short, ‘the College’) has been cancelled and the earlier notification No. 616/ESTAB/13, dated 01.06.2013, has been recalled. The petitioner has also prayed for revival of earlier notification No. 616/ESTAB/2013 with all consequential financial benefits.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner claims to be appointed on 27.01.1986 on the post of Peon, a Class- IV post, in the College, under the staffing pattern and he joined his duties on 01.02.1986. The name of the petitioner figured at serial number 7 in the published staff list, dated 02.03.1986, containing a list of 4th grade employees of the College issued by the Principal of the College.
3. Similarly situated employee, Habibur Rahman, along with other employees, whose names appeared along with the petitioner in the list of 4th grade employees working in the college (at Annexure 3) had earlier approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9535 of 2004, raising an identical grievance regarding regularization of their services. The said writ petition was disposed vide order, dated 28.09.2010, with a direction to the writ petitioners to file representation before the Vice Chancellor of the University.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, dated 28.09.2010, they filed representation before the Vice Chancellor of the University. The University regularized the services of all the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 9535 of 2004, vide notification, dated 29.02.2012 annexed at Annexure 5 of the present writ petition. The name of the petitioner appeared in the list of 4th grade employees of the College (Annexure 3) above the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 9535 of 2004.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner filed multiple representations, including one, dated 15.03.2012, seeking regularization of his services, but no action was taken by the University on his representation.
6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 11365 of 2012, seeking direction for regularization of his services as Class IV employee with all consequential benefits. The writ petition was disposed vide order, dated 06.07.2012, with direction to the University to consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned order, specifically dealing with the earlier notification, dated 29.02.2012, by which the services of similar situated persons have been regularized.
7. Following the said order, the University regularized the services of the petitioner, vide notification, as contained in memo no. 616/ESTAB/2013, dated 01.06.2013 (Annexure 9) in light of the decision of the committee, dated 18.05.2012, and recommendation of a three-men committee constituted by the University. The petitioner accordingly joined the post on the same day and, thereafter, the principal of the College wrote to the Registrar of the University regarding pay fixation of the petitioner.
8. Subsequently, all of a sudden, the University issued a fresh notification, as contained in memo no. 1050/ESTAB/2013, dated 30.07.2013, cancelling the notification, dated 01.06.2013, by which the services of the petitioner has been regularized.
9. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the notification by which the services of the petitioner has been regularized, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 20184 of 2013. The said wri
The cancellation of an employee's regularization based on arbitrary grounds violates principles of non-discrimination and due process, necessitating restoration of benefits to similarly situated indi....
Appointments against sanctioned posts do not require prior approval from the State Government, allowing for post facto validation and regularization of service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to regularization and equal pay for employees who have completed five years of continuous service, as per the Dhrubananda Mishra ju....
The State Government lacks jurisdiction to cancel a university's regularization notification, which violates principles of equality and the Bihar State Litigation Policy.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
