NAVIN KUMAR MISHRA, S/O SRI UPENDRA MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Krishna Chandra Jha, learned Assisting Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.8 for the State.

(2.) Though the writ petition was filed on a misconception to question the order dated 21.9.2016 as being adversarial to the interest of the petitioners but considering the import of the order which in fact extends the contract of service of the petitioners, Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners instead chose to withdraw the said prayer and to press the writ petition for the purpose of seeking regularisation of the services of the petitioners who had been appointed on contract basis following the advertisement present at Annexure-3.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the contract has been extended from time to time and the evidence thereof is present at Annexures- 9 to 11. Lastly through the order present at Annexure-1 dated 21.9.2016 instructions have been issued for taking steps for regularisation on the post and until such time for extension of the services of these contract appointees. The petitioners are aggrieved by the advertisement present at Annexure-19 which prima-facie advertises the posts for the purpose of absorption of these contract appointees appointed under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme against those posts. Mr. Singh advocating for the petitioners has made reference to a decision of the State Government present at Annexure-7 to submit that though a decision was taken for regularisation of these contract appointees but instead the respondents have gone ahead with the advertisement.