MAHENDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reason for delay of 3 years and 61 days stated in the I.A No.10015 of 2016 is because of pendency of a review application. After disposal of the review application, the appellants had sought legal aid and only after that, the appeal has been preferred. Delay is condoned. I. A. stands allowed.

(2.) The writ application of the present appellant along with yet another so-called employee was heard together as they were common petitioners in CWJC No.17607 of 201 They sought a direction upon the respondent authorities of the Education Department for regularization of their service in a previously filed writ application, which was CWJC No.1896 of 2008. The learned Single Judge did not find any infirmity in the decision of the respondents to disengage the present appellant from the responsibility of a Cycle Stand Keeper. However, liberty was granted to represent before the authorities. The authorities heard the parties and passed a rather detailed order, which has been extracted in the order impugned by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after considering the factual and legal aspect of the matter relied on a Division Bench decision reported in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav & anor. vs. State of Bihar & ors., (2013) 1 PLJR 964 and culled out the ratio of the decision, which was laid down in paragraph</i> 43, which reads as under :

(3.) From the above, it is evident that the reasons for dismissal of the writ application by the learned Single Judge seems to be on valid and cogent grounds. The engagement of the appellant by the Principal was not on a sanctioned legal post which was available. It was a working arrangement which does not create any right either for interference with the order of disengagement or any right of regularization.