CHANDRESHWAR PRASAD SINHA Vs. LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Application of the petitioner was admitted for consideration whether he had a right of regularization or absorption in service on the post of Laboratory Incharge in the U. R. College, Rosera, Samastipur, a so called constituent unit of L. N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. Prayer for payment of salary etc. was also made, if the first part of the relief would accrue to him.

(2.) Submission of the counsel for the petitioner has been that the University and the State authorities have unnecessarily being unreasonable with him by not considering his case for regularization, despite his long period of service in the said College and despite efforts and recommendations having been made in his favour from time to time, which never crystallized into anything substantive. Appointment of the petitioner for the first time was made on daily-wage, as would be evident from Annexure- 3, dated 03.08.1984. Thereafter, petitioner had approached the High Court for a suitable direction, when he was removed from the post of a Demonstrator. Annexure - 2 to the Writ Application shows so. Pursuant to the Order, contained in Annexure 2, there is yet another communication, confirming the said position, addressed to the Registrar of the said University. as would be evident from letter dated 03.08.1984 itself, which is at page 31. Since 1985, petitioner is supposed to have continued to render service in the adhoc capacity as a daily-wager. Various recommendations at the level of the College as well as of the University never begot him any permanency or salary. Therefore, the present Writ Application.

(3.) The Court has been taken through the various annexures, which have been brought on record by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was working against a so called sanctioned post of Lab Incharge and his name had been recommended by the University and the College authorities for consideration, but for one reason or the other no finality was achieved and petitioner remained in the lurch. He has also superannuated in the meanwhile, without receiving any benefit of such engagement, appointment or continuance.