STATE OF BIHAR Vs. HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the State of Bihar. At the out set the Court may indicate that regard being had to the aspect and the manner in which the pleadings were not exchanged the State of Bihar can hardly contend that the order of the learned Judge is incorrect.

(2.) If the engagement of the contesting respondents was not illegal the only issue which remains is of the regularisation of their services. Such large scale employment and consequential regularisation of service can only be under a scheme formulated by the State Government. The first five respondents evaded filing a reply to the petition. This is a matter on record and noticed by the learned Judge. The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit. This respondent was the Executive Engineer, Sitamarhi Division. He virtually admitted the, case of the respondent- petitioners. For instance it was accepted that the engagement of the persons concerned, in context, was regular; that there was a continuous employment and that the persons concerned had discharged "continuous service". It is accepted in the counter-affidavit that the Government is formulating a scheme for regularisation. The balance which remains is an aspect to give effect to the scheme.

(3.) It is noticed in the impugned judgment that on behalf of the State it was virtually being solicited that the High Court may give direction so that the State may regularise services. One thing this Court wants to make absolutely clear that let the administration not run for the State to say that the High Court has ordered it so. This is not so. Appellant-respondents will have to take the responsibility of running administration at their own initiative. If the illegalities be challenged and certified by the High Court, the Constitution obliges the High Court to do so.