RAM CHANDRA RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are twenty-two petitioners in this case. They seek direction, in effect and substance, to regualrise their services. They claim to be working on daily wage basis for 14 to 18 years.

(2.) When the case was taken up for hearing on 3-3-2003 the Court was informed that 14 out of 22 petitioners have either been made regular or appointed elsewhere or left the job and therefore the petition survives with respect to remaining 8 petitioners alone. The stand of the State Government is also to the same effect. It may be mentioned here that the claim of the petitioners for regularisation was kept on hold on account of the fact that they were engaged after 1-8-85 which has been fixed as the cut off date for the purpose of regualrisation. In course of hearing on 3-3-2003 the Court observed that the circumstances in which wife of petitioner No. 1 Ram Chandra Ram, namely Meena Devi, and petitioner Nos. 2, 9 and 10 Ashwini Kumar, Rambali Prasad and Ram Kumar Raut were made regular, are not clear. While Ram Kumar Raut was engaged after the cut off date i. e. 1 -8-85, Rambali Prasad, though engaged earlier, had not completed 240 days of service prior to cut off date as stipulated in the resolution. As regards Ashwini Kumar, it appeared from the earlier affidavit of the Department, that he had left the work some time in the year 1991 itself. Counsel for the State was directed to take instructions and file affidavit, An affidavit sworn by Shri Raghunath Prasad, Joint Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, has been filed, Having gone though the contents of the affidavit we do not think any useful purpose will be served by pursuing the matter as regards their regualrisation. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that all that the petitioners seek in this case is a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases too against the sanctioned posts. Counsel pointed out that even according to the respondents seven posts are available.

(3.) In the case of Babban Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2001 (4) PLJR 638, a Division Bench of this Court observed that the writ Court should avoid issuing direction for regualrisation in favour of petitioners of a particular case simply because they had approached the Court while others had not. The Court observed that more of ten then not the initial entry in service on daily wage basis was by back door method without observing any element of selection. However, the Court also observed that: