CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this group of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since common questions of facts and law are involved, they have been heard simultaneously, and are, now, being disposed of by this common Judgment, upon consensus, and joint request made by the Counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) IN all these Writ Petitions, the factual profile in each case may be different, but the main questions of some of facts and law in the light of the factual panorama are revolving round as to whether the appointment of the Petitioners in the respective Colleges under respective Universities could be said to be legal or illegal, or, regular or irregular, for the purpose of consideration and determination - of the claim for regularization of their services in respective Colleges on different cadres and posts of class III and IV viz. Assistant, Laboratory Technician, Library Assistant, Sorter (Class III), Clerk, Computer Programmer, Audio Visual Technician, Physical Training, Security Guard, Typists, Store Keeper, Account Clerk, Cook, Driver, Orderly, Peon, Chaukidar, etc. As noticed above, since main factual situation in each Petition raises common questions of law, more so, in the light of latest exposition or proposition of service jurisprudence involved in this group of Petitions, and latest case law lucidly, expounded by the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. V/s. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, learned Counsels for the parties have been heard intermittently on three occasions. Virtually, - common submissions, which are placed in focus, are with regard to their claim of regularisation in service as they have been working in respective cadres and posts in different departments of the respective Colleges by way of public employment and as such, they are entitled to be regularised.

(3.) LEARNED Counsels appearing for the Respondents Authorities and the State have mainly placed reliance on the latest Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Uma Devi (3) (Supra) and have countenanced the submissions raised by the Counsels for the Petitioners. It is also noticed from the submissions that some of the appointments are totally illegal, on unsanctioned posts, whereas, in some of the cases, the appointments have been made at the relevant point of time without observing due process of recruitment and, therefore, regularisation of service, in such cases, cannot be directed. However, they also contended that in view of the aforesaid decisions rendered in Umadevi(3) (supra), cases of the Petitioners of this group of cases may be considered in the light of the observations made in that judgment in paragraph 53 and, wherever it is permissible and possible, in the light of the ratio propounded in that decision, appropriate authority may be directed to consider or re -examines their cases.