@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order dated 25th March, 1994 on C.W.J.C. No: 3570 of 1998: Umashankar Tiwary v. State of Bihar
and Ors.
2. In effect, the relief sought by the Petitioner is that though being directed to receive promotion, he has been wrongly denied his position as routine
clerk.
3. Of being equally placed, Which the Petitioner claims, there is a clear disparity. Whereas Respondent No. 7 had been appointed on a work
charge establishment, the Petitioner had been appointed only for six months on a temporary and ad hoc basis.
4. In the circumstances, there is no discrimination which the Petitioner faced by the regularisation of the services of the Respondent No. 7. The
Petitioner also received regularisation.
5. The observations of the learned judge in paragraph 8 are relevant and, thus, reproduced:
From the facts stated above, it is apparent that this was a case of direct recruitment and not promotion as alleged by the Petitioner. The
Respondents have rightly contended that the appointment to the post of routine clerk and revenue muharir was on the basis of direct recruitment.
Therefore, it was not necessary for them to prepare a seniority list. For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner''s claim for promotion as also
quashing of the impugned order has no legs to stand. Similarly, with regard to alternative submission of the learned Counsel that necessary
formalities were not followed at the time of appointment of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, I am not inclinded to interfere with the impugned order
which was passed as back as in the year 1981.
6. The court does not find any error in the order of the learned judge so as to interfere by the present Letters Patent Appeal.
7. Besides, the court is fully conscious of the irregularities of appointments which flood cases before the High Court. Already there are matters
under inquiry of recruitment made by the State of Bihar and services transferred to public corporations and subsequently regularisation of service
also effected. In the Petitioner''s case, he subsequently became an employee of the Water Development Corporation. However, the court is not
digging the past. The Petitioner is lucky that he is retained on a job and has been regularised.
8. So far as the appeal is concerned the court is of the view that even the writ petition is not maintainable.
9. Dismissed.
