ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 05-01-2024 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 4 and Mr. Shiv Kumar, learned AC to GA-3 appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :

“(i) A writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order as contained in Memo No. 990 dated 05.06.08 issued under the signature of Secretary of respondent- Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna as contained in Annexure-20 which has been made available to the petitioner after much delay in pursuant to order passed in contempt proceeding whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner with regard to regularization of his service has been rejected on nonest ground without proper consideration of the clam of the petitioner.

(ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing upon the respondents concerned to regularize the service of the petitioner on Class-IV as petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages under erstwhile Vidyala Seva Board by the competent authority and he continued in service but despite specific direction for regularization by the Erstwhile Vidyalaya Seva Board in its meeting dated 29.12.1988 his service could not be regularized whereas several other persons who were engaged subsequent to the petitioner have been regularized and after dissolution of Vidyalaya Seva Board, services of all the employees were sent under Bihar Staff Selection Commission but name of petitioner has not been sent with oblique motive as a result petitioner is still running from pillar to post for the regularization and even till today no any letter of termination has been served upon the petitioner.

(iii) To regularise the service of the petitioner with all consequential monetary benefits.

(iv) And/or any other order/orders for granting any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Routine Clerk on daily wages basis vide letter no. 73 dated 04.04.1986 issued by the Secretary of the then existing Vidyalaya Seva Board but subsequently the aforesaid order was modified vide letter no. 102 dated 21.04.1986 by which the petitioner was reverted to the post of Peon in the office of Vidyalaya Seva Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner waqs discharging his duty since his appointment on 04.04.1986 regularly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite a policy decision the petitioner has not been taken into regular service of the erstwhile Vidyalaya Seva Board then he has filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 5700 of 1989 for a direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner and the writ petition was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court and thereafter the petitioner against filed CWJC No. 2444 of 1992 on the ground that junior persons to the petitioner have been appointed whereas the petitioner is not being regularised despite the available sanctioned vacant post. The said CWJC No. 2444 of 1992 was disposed on 10.08.1992 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and take a decision within two months and when the respondents had not taken any decision then the petitioner has filed a contempt petition bearing MJC no. 466 of 1993 which was also dismissed on 13.12.1996 and the aforesaid MJC was dismissed on the ground taken by the Board that “ the services of all such similar persons, who were engaged on daily wages and also of those similarly situated to the petitioner have been dispensed with”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the petitioner had again filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 6776 of 1998 for his regularization as there were vacancies available in the department and h