IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1873 of 2017 ======================================================

Chandrika Singh Son of Sukhadeo Singh, resident of Village- Kothian, P.S. Didarganj, District- Patna at present in the 4th Grade Service in Saran Nahar Pramandal, Gandak Yojana Marhaura under the respondent No. 7, Executive Engineer, Siwan, Water Resources, P.S. and District- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna- 1.

3. The Addl. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna-1.

4. The Engineer-in-chief North Bihar, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna-1.

5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna-1.

6. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Saran Nahar Pramandal, Siwan, P.S. and District- Siwan.

7. The Executive Engineer, Saran Nahar Pramandal, Siwan, Water Resources Department, P.S. and District – Siwan.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, AC to GA- 2 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:

“1. i. for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing of the letter dated 13.01.2017 issued under the signature of Executive Engineer, Saran Nahar Pramandal Maharajganj vide letter No. 28 to the petitioner whereby the petitioner has been ordered to discharge from the engagement as tractor driver from 12.02.2017 i.e. one month after the issuance of this letter dated

13.01.2017.

ii. for giving a direction to the authority not to disturb the petitioner from discharging his duty.

iii. for other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled for.”

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be stated here that as per the petitioner’s case, he was appointed initially in the year 1979 as a daily wage tractor driver in Punpun Flood Protection Division, Anishabad. The petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 4909 of 1996 which case along with others came to be disposed off by order dated 12.1.1999 directing the State Government and other respondents to pay the salary in the scale of pay admissible to Class-IV posts.

4. It further transpires from the records of the case that the case of the petitioner and few others came to be considered for their regularization of service. The respondents passed an order contained in Memo no. 1218 dated 16.4.2012 under the signature of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Siwan. Taking note of the facts that no advertisement was issued at the time of the petitioner’s appointment, no list was obtained from the employment exchange nor any examination was conducted, the Chief Engineer rejected the case of the petitioner for regularization of their service on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors; (2006) 4 SCC 1. It further transpires from the order dated 16.4.2012 that the Chief Engineer also took into consideration the facts that the petitioner had not been able to produce any evidence to the effect that their appointment had been made against sanctioned vacant post and the appointment had taken place as per the procedure established in law. The respondents had not been able to show that the appointing authority had the powers to appoint at the relevant time and in fact the petitioner and others had been working on daily wages.

5. It is not in dispute that the order dated 16.4.2012 giving detailed reasons and rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularizatio