ORDER :

1. With the consent of the parties, hearing of this matter has been done through video conferencing. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity.

2. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, directed against the order/judgment dated 27.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.160 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed, denying the claim of the petitioner for regularization in the service as also, has refused to interfere with the order of disengagement passed vide order dated 04.04.2018 by which the prayer for regularization of the service of the writ petitioner has been refused.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that due to inadvertence the reference of disengagement from service has been typed in the impugned order by making reference of order dated 04.04.2018 but it would be evident from the order dated 04.04.2018 that the same does not pertain to disengagement of the petitioner from service, rather by virtue of the said decision the claim of regularization from service has been rejected.

This Court considering the aforesaid submission and going through the order dated 04.04.2018 has found substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant and hence proceeded to examine the legality and propriety of the order dated 04.04.2018 in the pretext of denial of claim of the writ petitioner from regularization in service.

4. The brief facts of the case, which require to be referred herein, read hereunder as:

The appellant had been working as helper (unskilled) employee since the year 2000 without any break, even though he was appointed against the sanctioned vacant post, he has not been regularized.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the work was perennial in nature, as also sanctioned one, but instead of regularizing in service he has been disengaged from service vide order as contained in letter no.441 dated 04.04.2018.

The writ petitioner has ventilated his grievance along with the proforma respondents by invoking power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition has been dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2018 by showing no interference with the order of disengagement, against which the present intra-court appeal has been filed.

5. Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the case of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 as also, on the basis of judgment rendered in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238, but the learned Single Judge has not considered the factual aspect as also the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and as such, the same requires interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents- JUVNL has argued that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) is not applicable, since the nature of appointment of the appellant- writ petitioner was contractual, which was for a period of 89 days and as such, the post having not been sanctioned, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case.

According to him, since the writ petitioner was appointed against the non-sanctioned post for a period of 89 days and even though his services was renewed from time to time, he cannot claim for regularization in service since the post admittedly was not sanctioned one. Learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the aforesaid argument, has submitted that there is no infirmity in