Gopal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.2900 of 2012 (2) dt.12-03-2012 2 regularization as a one time measure. The impugned order states that the petitioner was never appointed. He was deputed during the strike period in the interest of work. It is therefore relevant that the petitioner somehow managed to continue notwithstanding the nature of his appointment. Obviously, he could not have continued in such capacity without the help and assistance of those who misutilized their powers to grant him the benefit. Any claim regularization pre-supposes existence of a master-servant relationship in one form or the other. If the relationship in any form whatsoever came to an end in the year-2000, it becomes a claim for appointment and not regularization. Regularization is not a mode of appointment. The observations in paragraph-53 of Umadevi’s case (supra) was limited to those who may have been appointed irregularly against a sanctioned vacant post and may have continued for ten years or more. The petitioner more appropriately falls in the category of persons discussed in paragraph-43 of the judgment excluded from the discussion contained in paragraph-53 of the judgment. Repeated judicial orders giving benefit of paragraph-53 of the judgment to even those falling in the category of persons in paragraph-43 of the judgment led the Supreme Patna High Court CWJC No.2900 of 2012 (2) dt.12-03-2012 3 Court to clarify in (2010) 3 SCC 115 (State of Karnataka vs. Ganpathi Chaya Nayak) and (2010) 4 SCC 179 (Satya Prakash Mishra vs. State of Bihar) that such persons do not come under the benefit of paragraph-53 of the judgment. The writ application is dismissed. (Navin Sinha, J) K.C.jha/-