@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Mihir Kr. Jha, J.@mdashThe two part of prayer in this writ application, one for absorption of the petitioner in regular service and the other for
payment of salary with effect from 1.11.1996 cannot be decided in his favour unless it is proved and established beyond doubt that appointment of
the petitioner was made in the prescribed manner and was followed by uninterrupted working. The issue, in fact, seems to have also received
attention of the competent authority, the Executive Engineer, who having found that there was no proper selection for appointment of the petitioner
on the post of pump operator had held such appointment of the petitioner to be rank illegal. It also appears that the then District Magistrate on
being persuaded by some officers of the Collectorate had directed the authority to continue the services of the petitioner for the next two months
but there is nothing to show that under whose authority the petitioner was continued in service beyond two months.
2. The question of payment of salary and/or regularization would depend on the mode and manner of appointment of the petitioner. This issue has
been settled by Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rita Mishra vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1987 P.L.J.R. 1090.
3. That being so, this Court would not permit the petitioner now to raise the question of regularization only on compassionate ground or the alleged
continuance in service for a number of years as has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) reported
in 2006(4) SCC page 1[:2006(2) PLJR (SC) 363. This application being thus devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
