IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2755 of 2011
Sanjay Kumar Ghosh, son of late Patal Chandra Ghosh, resident of
village & P.O. Jagdishpur, District - Bhagalpur
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. The Chief Secretary, Bihar Office at New Secretariat, Bailey Road,
Patna.
3. The D.M. Bhagalpur, District - Bhagalpur.
4. The D.D.C. Bhagalpur, District - Bhagalpur.
5. The B.D.O. Shahkund, Block - Shahkund, District - Bhagalpur.
-----------
For the petitioner : Dr. Shashi S Kishore.
For the State : M K Pathak, AC to GA 4.
—-
02. 5.7.2011 As per the assertions made in the writ application
petitioner is working on a daily wage as a Computer Operator
under the District Establishment of Bhagalpur from the year
2003. He has annexed a few documents to show that there are
recommendations made in his favour by the District
Development Commissioner to the District Magistrate to
regularize him. Since the District Magistrate has not taken
cognizance of those recommendations made by the
subordinate, writ has been filed.
This Court has to take into consideration the
declaration of law on the issue made by the highest Court of the
country in matters of such kind. Case of regularization or right
for claim to such benefit has been dealt with in detail by a
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi. None of the
parameters which have been laid down by the Supreme Court
even by way of an exception or a one-time measure for
2
regularization brings the case of the petitioner within the ambit.
Counsel for the petitioner also has not been able to
produce any judgment or order which could support him to
beget the relief which he is looking for despite the declaration
of the Constitution Bench. If that be so, then mere asking for
recommendation in favour of the petitioner by somebody down
the list in the district administration would not create a right for
regularization in favour of the petitioner.
Based on the direction of the Hon`ble Supreme
Court in Uma Devi’s case, the State of Bihar has already issued
circular in this regard in the year 2006. It goes without saying
that any claim much less of the petitioner will also have to be
tested on the basis of such circular, which any way has not been
produced by the counsel for the petitioner but if an occasion of
the kind arises then the decision in the case of Uma Devi and
the Government circular will have to be taken into consideration
by the concerned authority.
In view of above, no direction can be issued in
favour of the petitioner as no case as such is made out at this
stage.
Writ is dismissed.
rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)