Devendra Ray vs The L.N.Mithila University … on 16 November, 2010

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            CWJC No.17021 of 2008
                   DEVENDRA RAY, S/O SRI KAPILDEO RAY, R/O
                   VILLAGE+P.O.-SINGHARA, P.S.-MAHUA, DISTRICT-
                   VAISHALI, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER IN
                   HISTORY, B.R.B. COLLEGE, SAMASTIPUR.
                                                ..................PETITIONER.
                                      Versus
                   1. THE L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS
                   REGISTRAR, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA.
                   2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, L.N.MITHILA
                   UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA.
                   3. THE REGISTRAR, L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY,
                   KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA.
                   4. THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR, RAJ
                   BHAWAN, PATNA.              ..................RESPONDENTS.
                                  -----------

3 16.11.2010 In this writ application petitioner has prayed

for a direction to the respondent University to consider

his case for regularization. However, in view of the

judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dr.Shiv

Narayan Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (2001 (2) PLJR 817)

learned counsel for the petitioner fairly accepts that

now the regularization statutes can not come to any aid

of the petitioner. However, he submits that the case of

the petitioner may be considered by the University in

terms of paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench

judgment rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs.

Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006 (2) PLJR (SC) 363.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits

that in view of the said observations of the Constitution

Bench the University has to first examine whether the

petitioner’s appointment was illegal or irregular and
2

then only any decision can be taken.

This is not being disputed by learned counsel

for the petitioner.

In the circumstances, this writ application is

disposed of with a direction to the University authorities

to consider the case of the petitioner for his

regularization in term of said paragraph 44 of the

Constitution Bench judgment. The decision must be

taken by the respondents either way in accordance with

law within three months from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Court has not

applied its mind to the merits of the claim of the

petitioner which has to be considered by the University

authorities.

It goes without saying that if the petitioner’s

case passes the test laid down by the Constitution

Bench and is found valid, consequential orders has to

be passed accordingly.

Arvind/                             ( J. N. Singh, J.)