Patna High Court
Ranjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the clauses in the engagement letters, together with the petitioners’ successful qualification and eight years of continuous service, created a legitimate right to be regularised as substantive Personal Assistants, and the respondents could not deny that regularisation.
Summary
The petitioners, originally engaged on a six‑month contractual basis as Personal Assistants (P.A.) in the Patna High Court after failing the 2017 recruitment test, qualified a subsequent qualifying examination on 16‑12‑2018 as stipulated in their engagement letters. Despite repeatedly qualifying and serving continuously for about eight years, the respondents continued to extend their contracts without regularizing them, citing lack of statutory provision. The petitioners argued that the clauses in their engagement letters created a legitimate right to regularisation, and that the prolonged, indistinguishable service warranted conversion to substantive posts. The respondents contended that the contracts were personal‑service agreements not enforceable by writ, that the claim was barred by limitation, and that the petitioners had not met the statutory recruitment standards. The Court held that the engagement letters provided a valid path to regularisation, the respondents’ extensions did not alter that right, and equity demanded that the petitioners be appointed to regular substantive posts. Consequently, the Court ordered regularisation of petitioners 1, 3, 4 and 5 with effect from the filing date of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the contractual engagement letters created a enforceable right to regularisation upon passing the qualifying examination.
- Whether the petitioners’ claim is barred by limitation, laches or acquiescence.
- Whether the respondents can rely on the absence of a statutory provision for regularisation of contract employees.
- Whether the prolonged continuous service of the petitioners transforms their contractual status into a substantive appointment under constitutional principles.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14, Article 16, Article 21, Article 226, Article 311
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. Section 137
Subjects
- contractual employment
- regularisation
- personal assistant
- Article 226
- employment law
- long service
- equity
- limitation
- suppression of facts
- public service recruitment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8108 of 2024
======================================================
1. Ranjeet Kumar, S/o late Awadhesh Prasad Singh R/o House No.57, Road
No.10, Indrapuri, P.O.- Keshri Nagar, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna-
800024.
2. Sunny Katyayan, S/o late Surya Kishor Khan, R/o Plot No.D-42, Flat
No.302, 2nd Floor, Gali No.17, Hindon Vihar, Barola, Noida, Gautam
Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301.
3. Rajeev Kumar, S/o Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, R/o E-84, Bhagirathi Vihar,
P.O. and P.S.- Gokal Puri, North East Delhi-110094.
4. Mohd. Rashid @ Mohammad Rashid, Son of Vaseem Ahmad, R/o Village
and P.O. Sehuwadeeh, P.S.- Baharia, Tehsil- Phoolpur, District- Allahabad
(Prayagraj), Uttar Pradesh-212402
5. Gautam Mohan Shukla, S/o Bipin Mohan Shukla, R/o Bina Niwas, Village-
Manjhiladih, P.O. and P.S.-Tundi, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828142.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Hon'ble Patna High Court, Patna through its Registrar General.
4. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Binita Singh, S.C.-28
For the High Court : Mr. Piyush Lal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V JUDGMENT
Date : 09-01-2026
This writ petition is filed invoking the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
inter alia praying for absorbing/regularizing the petitioners
against the vacant permanent substantive posts of Personal
Assistants (hereinafter to be referred as “P.A.”) in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
2/64
establishment of this Court, who have been continuing on
contract basis since their initial engagement from March-April,
2018, and to grant them all consequential benefits including
regular pay scale and admissible allowances upon regularization
of their services with effect from 31.10.2018.
2. The brief factual matrix relevant for the
present purpose is that, the Patna High Court had published an
advertisement on 23.03.2017 on its website inviting eligible
candidates for direct recruitment to 100 vacant posts of P.A.
under the ministerial establishment of this Court in the pay scale
of Rs.9300-34800/- (Grade Pay of Rs. 4600) and usual
allowances as admissible under the Rules. Responding to the
aforesaid advertisement, the petitioners had applied within the
stipulated time. Pursuant to the aforesaid recruitment process,
the Online Test for recruitment to the post of P.A.-2017 was
conducted on 10.12.2017. On 31.03.2018, it was notified vide
notice issued by the Registrar General of this Court (Annexure
P/3), that none of the appearing candidates including the present
petitioners, met the minimum qualifying standard mentioned in
Clause-5 of the Advertisement No. P.A./01/2017 and
consequently none had qualified. In other words, all the
candidates including the present petitioners stood unsuccessful.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
3/64
3. Vide the same notice dated 31.03.2018, it
was notified that owing to pressing need of manpower due to
acute shortage of P.As. and in order to meet the requirement and
exigencies of this Court, it was decided to engage top 100
candidates, from amongst the non-qualified candidates, purely
on contractual basis for a period of six months on a consolidated
pay of Rs.30,000/- only per month subject to the terms and
conditions mentioned in their engagement letters, which was
issued individually to each of the aforesaid candidates. Keeping
in view the reservation policy and roster, as adopted by this
Court, wherein only 75 candidates could be engaged since 25
candidates belonging to EBC, SC, ST and DQ category
candidates could not make it within the said top 100
“unsuccessful” candidates. Consequently, the present petitioners
along with other candidates were engaged on contract basis and
individual engagement letters were issued. The engagement was
subject to the condition that the candidates must clear the
minimum qualifying standards as prescribed in the
advertisement on completion of six months period of their
service and those candidates who cleared the test would be
considered for appointment on the substantive post of P.A. on
probation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
4/64
4. The aforesaid engagement letters (Annexure
P/4 series) issued to the candidates including the petitioners
reads as under:-
“With reference to your application for the post
of Personal Assistant in pursuance of the
Advertisement No. P.A/01/2017 dated 23rd
March, 2017 and the computer based exam held
on 10th December, 2017, it is informed that none
of the candidates including you, who appeared
at the aforesaid examination, has cleared the
prescribed minimum qualifying standards
required for selection/appointment on the post of
Personal Assistant in terms of the
Advertisement.
However, in order to meet the
requirement and exigencies of the Court, you are
hereby engaged on the post of Personal
Assistant purely on contract basis for a period
of six months on the basis of your performance
in the said examination.
Your engagement is subject to the
following terms and conditions:-
1. This engagement is purely contractual
and is made for a period of six months
from the date you report for the duty. It
would give no right to the persons to
claim permanent appointment on any
posts in the High Court.
2. You will report for duty within 15 days from
the date of receipt of this letter of
Engagement. In case you fail to report
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
5/64
for duty within 15 days, this order will
stand withdrawn.
3. You will be entitled to a consolidated
monthly pay of Rs.30,000/-. You will not
be entitled to any other pay or
allowance/s.
4. This is not a regular appointment in the
High Court. You will not be allowed any
perquisites or facilities available to a
regular or a permanent employee of the
High Court.
5. Your regular appointment is subject to
condition that you must clear minimum
prescribed qualifying standard of the
Court in English Shorthand-Typing test
and English Typing test to be conducted
on completion of six months of
Contractual Service.
6. After clearing the said tests, you may be
considered for appointment to the
substantive post of Personal Assistant on
probation by putting you on regular pay
scale of the post plus usual allowances
as admissible under the Rules.
7. This engagement may be terminated
without assigning any reason at any
time during the subsistence of the
service contract.
8. You will be entitled to paid leave on all
public holidays. In addition to the public
holidays, you will be allowed four paid
casual leave for every quarter of a year
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
6/64
commencing from 1st of January of the
year. Casual leave not availed of, in any
quarter, may be carried forward to the
next quarter but not further. You will not
be allowed more than four days casual
leave at a time.
Xxx”
5. Pursuant thereof, altogether 42 out of 75
candidates, including the present petitioners, finally joined the
post of P.A. on the above terms and conditions. The Registrar
General-respondent no.04 vide his Office Order dated
10.10.2018 (Annexure P/5) extended the period of engagement
for 45 days on the same terms and conditions, on which the
candidates including the petitioners were engaged and it was
further stated that the qualifying examination as contemplated in
clauses (5) and (6) of the engagement letters shall be conducted
and the date thereof would be notified in due course. On
30.10.2018 (Annexure P/6 series), the date of the aforesaid
examination, which was meant for regular appointment for the
42 P.As, serving on contract basis at that time, was notified as
04.11.2018 by the respondent no.04-Registrar General. The
aforesaid notice reads as under:-
“It is notified that qualifying
examination/test of English Shorthand Typing
and English Typing test for regular appointment
of 42 Personal Assistants engaged on contract
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
7/64
basis for a period of six months, is going to be
held on 4th November, 2018, as per notice
containing schedule, scheme & venue attached
herewith.
A list of all the 42 Personal Assistants
engaged on contract basis bearing their name,
father's name, registration number & roll number
is also attached herewith for information and
needful.
They are hereby directed to appear at the
aforesaid qualifying examination/ test at the venue
mentioned in the notice, as per the schedule;
failing which request for re-test, in no case, shall
be entertained in future.
xxxxx
Dated – 30th October, 2018
Registrar General”
6. Further, by an even dated notice, it was also
notified that the aforesaid examination which was scheduled for
04.11.2018 would to be conducted by the same agency that had
conducted the initial recruitment examination i.e. TCS in the
following manner:-
i. Test-I : English Shorthand Dictation and
Typing Test (28 minutes)
ii. Test-II : English Typing Test (10 minutes)
7. On 23.11.2018, the Competent Authority had
directed to place the results of the aforesaid examination in a
sealed cover and further that the engagement of the aforesaid
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
8/64
contractual employees i.e. the 41 P.A.s, at the time, was
extended by one month. After completion of the aforesaid test, it
was notified vide notice dated 05.12.2018 (Annexure P/7), that
none of the 41 P.As who were engaged and serving at the time
on contract and had appeared for the test on 04.11.2018 have
qualified the aforesaid qualifying test. Accordingly, a fresh
examination of English Shorthand Typing Test for the 41
candidates was conducted in the Court premises on 16.12.2018.
The criterion for the examination scheduled for 16.12.2018 also
stood changed and the candidates were further informed that the
passage for the aforesaid test shall be approximately of 1000
words and the speed of stenography expected from them was 80
words per minute (wpm) and accordingly the dictated passage
was to be typed out within the prescribed limit of time which
was 50 minutes. Vide another notice, which was again in
continuation of the earlier notice dated 05.12.2018, it was
informed to the 41 candidates that an English Typing Test of 400
words @ 40 wpm would also be conducted immediately after
the examination of the English Shorthand typing test on the
same date i.e., 16.12.2018.
8. After the examination on 16.12.2018 was
concluded, it was notified vide Office Order No.01, dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
9/64
11.01.2019 (Annexure P/9) by the respondent no.4-Registrar
General that based on the performance in the aforesaid
examination of English shorthand typing test and the English
typing test held on 16.12.2018, altogether 35 out of the 41
candidates were continued on contractual basis on the same
terms and conditions on which their earlier engagements were
made, till regular selections are held as per the Rules after fresh
advertisement. The remaining six candidates who could not
achieve the minimum standard in the aforesaid examination,
their services stood terminated vide Office Order No. 02 of even
date (Annexure P/10). Out of the 35 selected persons who were
to continue as contractual engagement after qualifying the
examination held on 16.12.2018, only, 08 candidates, including
the present petitioners remained. Subsequently, even out of the
aforesaid 08 candidates, 03 candidates resigned and only five
candidates remained. These five candidates are before this Court
in the present writ petition.
Submissions of the petitioners:-
9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that immediately after qualifying the
examination held on 16.12.2018, the petitioners preferred
several representations through the respondent-Registrar
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
10/64
General for appointing them on the substantive post of P.A. in
view of clause (5) read with clause (6) of their engagement
letters but in all occasions the respondents have not considered
their prayer and vide different office orders the services of the
petitioners was extended periodically and the terms of their
original engagement sustained. Subsequently, on a
representation dated 09.08.2021, made by the petitioners and
other candidates engaged contractually, the tenure of their
contract was further extended till conclusion of the then
upcoming direct recruitment on the same terms and condition as
originally engaged on the post of P.A. vide Office Order dated
05.09.2021 (Annexure P/17). It is emphasized by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had drawn
strength from the clauses (5) and (6) of their engagement letters
to contend that their services merits regularization upon having
qualified the examination.
10. Adverting to the clauses (5) and (6) of the
engagement letters, the learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that a bare perusal of the aforesaid clause would show
that the appointments of the petitioners were made subject to the
condition that they must clear the minimum prescribed
qualification upon completion of the six months of contractual
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
11/64
service, and after successfully qualifying the aforesaid test, the
case of the petitioners would be considered for regular
substantive permanent post of P.A. on probation by putting them
on regular pay scale and admissible allowances. The
examination which took place on 16.12.2018 was in pursuance
of the said stipulation under clauses (5) and (6) of the
engagement letters, and the petitioners having successfully
qualified by meeting the minimum statutory standard therein
have crystallized their right to be considered towards
regularization.
11. It has been categorically submitted that the
petitioners were selected, not randomly, rather pursuant to the
open examination based on their performance therein in order of
merit, and the stipulation as contained under clauses (5) and (6)
of their engagement letters clearly provided that upon
successfully qualifying the examination, the services would be
regularized. Thus, it is argued that the petitioners were not
selected as a ‘back-door’ entrant and it would be manifestly
arbitrary for the respondents to not regularize the services of the
petitioners against the substantive regular posts despite fulfilling
the conditions pursuant to clauses (5) and (6) of their
engagement letters and pertinently after having successfully
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
12/64
qualifying the examination conducted on 16.12.2018.
12. It has further been submitted that the
petitioners who are discharging the same duties as their
counterparts, who have been appointed on a regular post, are yet
being deprived of their rightful regularization. The learned
counsel for the petitioners has drawn strength from the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jaggo vs.
Union of India & Ors. reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826,
particularly paragraph-10 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had held that long and uninterrupted service cannot be brushed
aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time
or contractual. The essence of the employment must be
considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the
integral nature of the work and the fact that no evidence
suggests that their entry was illegal or surreptitious. On the
strength of the aforesaid decision rendered in the case of Jaggo
(supra), the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that
the case of the present petitioners squarely justifies
regularization since, firstly, the nature of work dispensed by the
petitioners are perennial and fundamental to the working of the
High Court. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates
their regularization on regular substantive post, irrespective of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
13/64
how their initial engagements were labelled. Secondly, the work
of the instant petitioners is not only essential but also
indistinguishable from those regular appointees who are
working as regular P.A.s in this Court. Thirdly, the petitioners
are not back-door entrants since their engagement letters itself
provisioned for a path towards regularization upon qualifying
the examination as per clauses (5) and (6) of their engagement
letters and after successfully qualifying the examination
conducted by the respondent authorities on 16.12.2018, the
petitioners have a crystallized lawful claim for regularization of
their services. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the denial of the regularization by the respondent
authorities is a glaring case of misuse of label of ‘engagement
on contract basis’ and denial of basic rights and benefits of the
petitioners.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
case of Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors,
reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327, wherein the Hon’ble Court in
Para-5 had held that the essence of employment and the rights
thereof cannot be merely determined by initial terms of
appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
14/64
significantly over time. The continuous services of the
petitioners performing duties indistinguishable from those on
permanent posts, and their selection through a process that
mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive
departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of
their initial engagement. Further, adverting to paragraph-8 of the
aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners has
argued that in the present case, the service conditions, as
evolved over a long period of time, warrants a reclassification
from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the
substantive nature of their role and their continuous service akin
to the permanent employees runs counter to the principles of
equity, fairness and intent behind employment regulations.
14. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a
recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dharam Singh & Ors. vs State of U.P. & Anr. reported as 2025
(4) PLJR (SC) 152 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735.
15. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the
present petitioners submits that the petitioners have now reached
the upper age limit and therefore they could not appear for any
public employment and further the petitioners have been serving
this Court, since April, 2018, i.e., for about eight years now and
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
15/64
therefore it is argued that even on a sympathetic consideration
the petitioners deserve regularization of their services.
Submissions of the respondent nos. 3 and 4
16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent nos.3 and 4 has submitted at the outset that the
present writ petition is not maintainable on three counts.
17. Firstly, the petitioners were contractually
engaged and on the strength of clauses (5) and (6) of their
engagement letters are seeking regularization against regular
substantive posts of P.As. which is not maintainable since
admittedly the aforesaid engagement letters were ‘contracts of
personal service’ entered into between the petitioners and the
Patna High Court and the terms of such contracts in the nature
of ‘personal service’ are not enforceable by way of writ
jurisdiction except on a limited scope, particularly in three
circumstances (i) dismissal in violation of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India; (ii) reinstatement of dismissed worker
under industrial law by labour / industrial tribunal; and (iii)
statutory body acting in breach of mandatory obligation imposed
by statute. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4
has submitted that none of the three scenarios are attracted in the
facts of the present case and consequently the instant writ is not
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
16/64
maintainable as the petitioners can not seek enforcement of
clauses (5) and (6) governing their contract which is a ‘contract
of personal service’ as contained in their engagement letters
dated 21.03.2018 by way of invoking writ jurisdiction. The
learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bank of Baroda Limited vs. Jeewan Lal Mehrotra reported as
(1970) 3 SCC 677 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held
as under:-
“3. The main point that has been urged on behalf of
the appellant is that the present case was one of
termination of service after giving of three
months' notice and the ordinary law of master
and servant applied. Although in case of illegal
termination or dismissal the respondent could
have claimed damages but he could not ask for
or be granted a declaration that he should be
treated as if he was still in service. The law as
settled by this court is that no declaration to
enforce a contract of personal service will be
normally granted. The well-recognised
exceptions to this rule are (1) where a public
servant has been dismissed from service in
contravention of Article 311, (2) where re-
instatement is sought of a dismissed worker
under the industrial law by labour or industrial
tribunals, (3) where a statutory body has acted
in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
17/64
statute vide U.P. Warehousing Corpn. Ltd. v.
Chandra Kiran Tyagi [(1969) 2 SCC 838. The
case of the respondent did not come under any
of the above exceptions. Therefore, in granting a
declaration of the nature sought by the
respondent the courts acted contrary to law and
that part of the decree could not be upheld. On
behalf of the appellant, the reversal of the
decree for Rs 1650 has not been pressed.”
18. Secondly, the present writ petition is also
grossly barred by limitation and suffers from delay, laches and
acquiescence on the part of the petitioners, since according to
the admitted position of the petitioners they should have been
absorbed/regularized into regular substantive posts upon
qualifying the two tests conducted on 16.12.2018 in terms of
clauses (5) and (6) of their engagement letters, however they
were not taken into the fold of the High Court against regular
substantive posts vide order dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure P/9)
and rather their contractual engagement was continued and
extended till regular appointments under fresh advertisement.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4
has argued that the cause of action arose on 16.12.2018 when
the petitioners stood qualified in the test, however the petitioners
have chosen to file the present writ petition only on 09.05.2024
after a lapse of more than five years. Adverting to Article 137 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
18/64
the Limitation Act 1963, the learned counsel has submitted that
the present writ is grossly barred by limitation since merely
filing repeated representations after the year 2019 and its
rejection by the Competent Authority does not ipso facto extend
the cause of action which squarely arose on 16.12.2018 itself. To
fortify his argument, the learned counsel has placed reliance on
State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Bhailal Bhai reported as 1964 SCC
OnLine SC 10 = AIR 1964 SC 1006 and more recently in the
case of State of Orissa vs. Bhagaban Mohanty (D) thr LRs
passed in Civil Appeal No. 3525 of 2025 arising out of S.L.P
(C) No. 26965 of 2019. The learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 3 and 4 has further argued that the right of the petitioners to
claim regular appointment as per clauses (5) and (6) of
engagement letters on passing of the above two tests on
16.12.2018 was denied to them on 09.01.2019 by issuance of
office order No. 01 (Annexure P/9) as it was directed that they
will continue on contract only till regular selection is made as
per Rules after fresh advertisement. Therefore, it is argued that it
is an admitted case that the petitioners did not challenge this
denial of regular appointment and change of term and condition
of their contractual engagement before any Court of Law and
continued to work on contractual basis thus, they accepted the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
19/64
said change, i.e. acquiesced to the same, way back in the year
2019 itself. Accordingly, the petitioners now cannot turn around
and claim appointment / absorption on regular basis when till
date they have not challenged either the said decision of denial
of regular appointment notified on 09.01.2019 or the said
change of terms and conditions on their engagement on contract
which admittedly is binding on them and therefore, on this score
also, it is argued that the present writ stands not maintainable
having been hit by delay laches and acquiescence.
19. Thirdly, the learned counsel has submitted
that the present writ is also not maintainable on grounds of
suppression of material facts and insinuation, inasmuch as, the
petitioners have deliberately suppressed the fact that on
23.08.2023, the Patna High Court had issued fresh
advertisement for direct recruitment to 36 posts of P.As. and all
the five instant petitioners had duly applied therein however, the
petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 did not even qualify the preliminary
test and the petitioner no.3 failed to qualify the written test as
they stood below the cut-off marks of their respective
categories. Subsequently, the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 had
submitted a representation dated 27.02.2024 seeking to allow
them to directly appear in the written test despite not qualifying
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
20/64
the preliminary test, which was rejected and communicated to
petitioner no.1 vide memo no. 25004 dated 29.03.2024 with a
request to inform the others. On 08.05.2024 the final result was
declared for the P.A. Exam-2023 and immediately thereafter the
petitioners preferred the present petition without adverting to
and deliberately suppressing the above material facts. It is
therefore argued that the petitioners had deliberately suppressed
the facts keeping in view their contractual engagement was
meant only till fresh appointments were made under P.A. Exam-
2023 which is not in dispute and therefore, the suppression of
the material fact renders the instant petition as not maintainable.
20. Now, adverting to the counter affidavit, the
answering respondent no.4 has brought the bare facts of the case
to the foreground and submitted that the advertisement
(employment notice) bearing Adv. No. P.A./01/2017 was issued
on 23.03.2017 for the direct recruitment to 100 vacant posts of
P.A, under the ministerial establishment by the Patna High Court
on the terms and conditions mentioned therein as per applicable
Rules being the Patna High Court Officers and Staff (Condition
of Service) Rules, 1997 as amended from time to time. The
candidates including the petitioners appeared and as per the
results of the written (online) test which was held on
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
21/64
10.12.2017, none of the appearing candidates, including the
present petitioners, obtained the minimum qualifying
marks/standard in the four tests. It is further submitted that even
as per the proviso to clause-5 of the advertisement, which
provisioned for a relaxation of 10%, however still, none of the
candidates could qualify even the relaxed standards in the four
tests. It is, therefore, the contention that the candidates not only
could not qualify the minimum standard, but also could not meet
the further relaxed minimum standard and were therefore
unsuccessful. Accordingly, being unqualified in both the
standards, i.e. minimum standard and the relaxed standard, the
candidates were not called in for the subsequent second
recruitment stage, which was the interview stage. However, the
unsuccessful candidates were engaged purely on contractual
basis to meet the urgent need and exigency of the Court vide
notice dated 31.03.2018 and individual letters of engagement
were accordingly issued on 31.03.2018. It is however stressed,
by the answering respondent no.4, that since the none of the
candidates had qualified, no interview stage took place and as a
result, the recruitment was never complete and no right for
absorption/regularization could flow from an incomplete
recruitment process.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
22/64
21. It is further submitted by the answering
respondent no.4 that owing to the pressing exigency, either
manpower could have been outsourced from open market or
alternatively could have been met by way of purely contractual
engagements, for a limited short period of time, from amongst
the top 100 non-qualified candidates of P.A. Examination, 2017.
The Patna High Court had decided in favour of the latter which
was approved by the Establishment Committee of this Court and
the Competent Authority, accordingly, decided to engage, top
100 non-qualified candidates in order of merit, purely on
contractual basis. Since none of the candidates belonging to
EBC, SC, ST and DQ category could make into top 100 non-
qualified candidates, only 75 candidates were offered
engagement subject to the condition, as stipulated in clause (5)
and (6), that they must clear the minimum qualifying standards
which was to be conducted upon completion of the said period
and those who cleared may be considered for appointment on
the substantive regular posts of P.A. on probation. Altogether 42
out of the 75 candidates, including the petitioners, joined the
service between 09.04.2018 and 14.06.2018.
22. The answering respondent no.4 had next
submitted that after the completion of the examination which
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
23/64
was held on 04.11.2018 by the same agency, i.e., TCS, the result
was placed before the Competent Authority who vide minutes
dated 28.11.2019 had noted that according to the norms
prescribed under the 1997 Rules, none of the candidates were
able to qualify the test conducted by TCS and had further
directed that a fresh examination be conducted on 16.12.2018.
Paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the
answering respondent no.4 is extracted herein below:-
“9. That after the above two tests were held on
16.12.2018 in which the said 41 contractual
employees appeared, computerized and manual
evaluation was carried out and result in sealed
cover was placed before the Hon'ble Competent
Authority who after opening and perusing it was
pleased to note that as per the norms fixed (I.e.
minimum percentage of accuracy in English
Shorthand typing test being 90% and that of
English Typing test being 95%) out of the said
41 contractual employees 35, including the
petitioners, were reported to be successful and a
total of 6 could not achieve either or both these
minimum qualifying standards. The Hon'ble
Competent Authority after perusing the entire
concerned file and taking into consideration the
entire facts starting from initiation of the process
for recruitment to the above said 100 posts of
personal assistants was pleased to record his
minutes dated 9.1.2019 holding, amongst others,
as follows:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
24/64
"........... Having considered the same
since the above contractual appointees
were taken into the fold of the High Court
on account of the exigencies of
requirement of Personal Assistants and
were engaged on contractual basis, the
issue of regularization as proposed
earlier would not be in consonance with
the Rules, inasmuch as there is no such
provision for regularization of services
of such candidates who had been
appointed on contractual basis after
having been unsuccessful in the
examinations conducted pursuant to the
advertisement. Even otherwise most of
the candidates could succeed only after
manual evaluation was carried out.
Consequently, in the absence of any
Rules relating to regularization of any
regular appointment by such mode, the
above successful candidates cannot be
offered regular appointment on a
substantive basis. However, in view of the
exigencies of the High Court which will
continue to prevail and the requirement
of Personal Assistants may be necessary
with any future elevations of Hon'ble
Judges, I find it expedient to retain the
above thirty five candidates mentioned
hereinabove who will continue on
contractual basis on the same terms and
conditions till regular selections are held
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
25/64
as per the Rules after fresh
advertisement. The services of the six
unsuccessful candidates mentioned
hereinabove shall stand terminated. Steps
be immediately taken for regular
recruitment of Personal Assistants with a
wide Advertisement so as to attract the
maximum number of applicants. The
existing regular vacancies be calculated
and advertisements be issued preferably
within two weeks from today to go ahead
with the regular recruitment process as
per Rules…….”
10. That in compliance of the above decisions
office order No. 01(Appt.) dated 9.1.2019
(Annexure-P/19 to writ petition) was issued by
the Patna High Court by which on the basis of
their performance in the tests held on
16.12.2018 the 35 contractual employees,
including the petitioners, were continued on
contract basis on the same terms and conditions
as their initial engagement till regular selection
was held as per Rules after fresh advertisement
and office order No. 02 (Appt.) dated 9.1.2019
(Annexure-P/10 to writ petition) was issued
terminating services of six contractual
employees as they did not achieve the minimum
qualifying standard required in the above tests
held on 16.12.2018.”
23. It is next submitted that the Patna High Court
initiated the process of regular direct recruitment for the post
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
26/64
and altogether 12 candidates were declared successful and out of
which, only 09 candidates joined the service and taking note of
the fact that the P.A. section of the Patna High Court had
reported a dearth of P.As., despite the joining of newly
appointed P.As. through direct recruitment, it was directed by
the Competent Authority on 26.02.2020 that the services of the
contractual P.As. be continued for two weeks till further
examination. Thereafter the COVID-19 pandemic broke out and
disrupted the workings of the Court which had to be shifted into
virtual mode necessitating increased work load of the
digitization cell and therefore, the services of the remaining
contractual P.As. were utilized therein and the engagement of
the aforesaid contractual P.As. were extended from time-to-time.
Subsequently, a joint representation dated 09.08.2021 was filed
by the petitioners requesting for their substantive appointment
on the post of P.A. and the same was placed before the
Establishment Committee, which had considered the
representation of the petitioners in its meeting held on
14.08.2021 and recommended that the petitioners be continued
as P.As. on contract on the present terms and conditions till the
conclusion of the impending exercise for direct recruitment of
P.As. considering the dearth of trained P.AS. and directed the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
27/64
Registry to take expeditious steps for initiation of recruitment
process for P.As. and that the contractual P.As. may be granted
age relaxation in the upcoming recruitment exercise subject to
approval of the competent authority, which was approved by the
Competent Authority on 05.09.2021.
24. It has further stated in the counter affidavit
that the petitioners filed yet another representation dated
12.12.2022 praying for their substantive appointment on the post
of personal assistant, which was placed before the Establishment
Committee on 04.01.2023 and the Committee taking note of
several facts including the fact of continuance of service, their
work and conduct reports and the petitioners having crossed
upper age limit for any other employment, had observed that a
sympathetic view be taken. Accordingly, the matter was placed
before the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority
had directed to place the same before the Standing Committee
noting that the moot question was whether absorption
/adjustment of the petitioners was permissible under the extant
recruitment Rules. The Standing Committee in its meeting held
on 09.05.2023 considered the representation of the petitioners
and had resolved that "The representation for regularization is
rejected. However the Standing Committee was of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
28/64
unanimous opinion that some relaxation could be granted to the
five Personal Assistants appointed on contract basis. In the
proposed recruitment, there shall be relaxation of age of five
years. In the selection process they would also be given 5 (five)
marks for every completed year of service as contract employee.
Notification for recruitment shall be issued specifying the
weightage given to the contract employees continuing presently
in service. Registry to expedite the notification for vacant posts
through direct recruitment."
25. It has next been stated in the counter
affidavit that the Establishment Committee in its meeting held
on 16.05.2023 while approving the draft advertisement and
model scheme of Personal Assistant recruitment examination
had granted relaxation of 5 years in age and 5 marks for every
completed year of service in the second level of process i.e. in
the shorthand computer typing test (main) since comparative
merit is to be adjudged on the basis of this part of the evaluation
process as well as taking into account the marks obtained in
interview only whereas the first part of the process i.e.
preliminary test is merely qualifying in nature and further that
the said weightage would only be for the petitioners subject to
the condition that in any case the marks obtained would not
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
29/64
exceed the ceiling of total marks. Accordingly, advertisement
no. PHC/03/2023 was issued on 23.8.2023 by the Patna High
Court calling for applications for direct recruitment to 36 posts
of Personal Assistant through Personal Assistant Recruitment
Examination, 2023 wherein the above decisions in the case of
petitioners was duly mentioned. In pursuance of the aforesaid
advertisement, all the petitioners applied and appeared in the
Preliminary Test and the result of the said Preliminary Test was
declared on 19.2.2024, in which 312 candidates including the
petitioner no.3 were declared qualified to take the mains written
test but, it is emphasized by the answering respondent that, the
petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 did not even qualify in the
preliminary test as they scored below the cut off marks in their
respective categories. Thereafter, mains examination was
conducted and the result of the same was declared, in which 84
candidates were declared qualified to take interview, however,
the petitioner no. 3 did not qualify in the main written test as he
scored below cut of marks of his unreserved category.
26. After the petitioners failed to qualify in the
above recruitment examination of 2023, they again filed a
representation dated 27.02.2024 with prayer to allow them to
move to the second stage of 2023 examination i.e. the mains
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
30/64
written test directly. The same was notwithstanding the fact that
they had not qualified in the first stage i.e. the preliminary test.
The same was considered by the Competent Authority and the
representation was rejected on 29.03.2024. It has also been
asserted in the counter affidavit, as already noted in the
preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the
respondent no. 3 and 4, that the facts regarding rejection of their
representation by the Competent Authority has not been brought
on record in the writ petition and therefore, the same has been
deliberately suppressed by the petitioners.
27. It is the categorical submission on behalf of
the respondent no.4 that the case of the petitioners for
appointment/absorption as per clause (5) and (6) of their
engagement letters dated 31.03.2018 has been considered at
three different occasions by the Patna High Court. Firstly, on
09.01.2019 by the Competent Authority, secondly, on
14.08.2021 by the Establishment Committee of this Court
concurring with the decision dated 09.01.2019 and approved by
the Competent Authority on 05.09.2021 and thirdly on
09.05.2023 by the Standing Committee. It is emphasised that on
all three occasions, it was found that the petitioners cannot be
appointed / absorbed / regularized on permanent vacancy of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
31/64
post of P.As. because there is no provision under the applicable
Rules i.e. Patna High Court Officers and Staffs (Condition of
Service) Rules, 1997 that a person who has been appointed on
contractual basis after having been unsuccessful in selection
process held for direct recruitment in pursuance of an
advertisement can be taken into regular service by either of the
said three modes.
28. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 3
and 4 has next submitted that it is an admitted fact that as per
Rule 9(7) of the 1997 Rules and clause 5 of advertisement No.
01/PA/2017 dated 23.3.2017, the procedure for direct
recruitment on the post of P.A. was written test and interview
and selection was to be made on basis of aggregate marks of
these two tests. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners
along with all other candidates were not successful in written
test held on 10.12.2017 and thus were never called for interview
and the selection process was not continued any further and thus
it came to an end. Though the petitioners were unsuccessful
candidates in first stage of recruitment process but were
appointed purely on contract for a period of 6 months only due
to administrative exigencies. Further, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 that clauses (5)
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
32/64
and (6) of engagement letters dated 31.3.2018, on which
reliance is placed by the petitioners, cannot override the
statutory provisions of 1997 or 2021 Rules as it is settled law
that recruitment can only be in terms of statutory rules and the
terms and conditions of advertisement.
29. The learned counsel has placed heavy
reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and Anr. vs. U.P. Public Service
Commission & Ors reported as (2006) 9 SCC 507; Indian
Institute of Technology & Anr. vs. Paras Nath Tiwari & Ors.
reported as (2006) 9 SCC 670 and the decision in the case of
Gridco Ltd & Anr. vs Standards Doloi & Ors. reported as
(2011) 15 SCC 16.
30. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
for the answering respondents that even if there existed any right
under clauses (5) and (6) of engagement letters dated 31.3.2018
but on reading of the same would clearly show that only a
limited right which the petitioners had was a right of
consideration of their cases for regular appointment if they were
successful in the two tests and the petitioners being successful in
qualifying these two tests held on 16.12.2018, their said limited
right was given effect to by due consideration of their cases for
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
33/64
regularization thrice i.e. by the Competent Authority on
09.01.2019 and for the second time on 14.8.2021 / 05.09.2021
and finally for a third time on 09.05.2023. Each time, it was
found that they cannot be appointed or regularized in view of
there being no statutory provisions that a person who has been
appointed on contractual basis after having been unsuccessful in
selection process held for direct recruitment in pursuance of an
advertisement can be taken into regular service. Further, the said
two clauses 5 and 6 never provided that as soon as they would
pass the two tests they will be regularized per se and
automatically.
31. It is next submitted that even arguendo if a
right accrued in favour of the petitioners to be appointed on
regular basis as soon as they passed the above two tests in terms
of clauses (5) and (6) of the engagement letters, the same in
view of the decision of the Competent Authority dated
09.01.2019 stood changed to a new term and condition that they
were to continue on contract till regular appointments are made
as per Rules after fresh advertisement and again reiterated vide
office order No.10 dated 05.09.2021 considering their
representation dated 09.08.2021. It is stressed by the learned
counsel that the petitioners have never challenged this change of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
34/64
original terms and condition of their contractual appointment
before any Court of Law and rather have accepted the same and
continued till date with their contract being extended from time
to time. Thus, having accepted the said change the petitioners
cannot now turn around and claim that the new term and
condition of their contractual appointment imposed on
09.01.2019 be changed back to the original term and condition
as contained in clauses (5) and (6) of their engagement letters
dated 31.3.2018 as it would amount to re-writing the terms and
conditions of a contract which cannot be granted to them on any
count.
32. It is settled law that appointment can be only
made following the rules of recruitment and procedure
prescribed thereunder in compliance of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and an irregular appointment can be
regularized provided provision exist under the applicable Rules.
An appointment is irregular for want of compliance of one of
the elements in the selection process which does not go to the
root of the process.
33. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
answering respondents that in the present case admittedly the
applicable Rule was the 1997 Rules. The procedure for direct
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
35/64
recruitment to the post of P.A. under Rule 9(7) is (i) English
shorthand typing test (ii) English typing test (iii) English
language and grammar test (iv) knowledge of computer
application test and (v) interview. A candidate to be successful in
written test had to obtain the minimum qualifying marks
prescribed for each of these four subject tests. On being
successful in written test, a candidate could qualify to appear in
interview and to qualify in the interview he had to obtain
minimum 30% marks. Final selection for appointment as per
1997 Rules was to be on the basis of merit based on aggregate
of marks of written test and interview. In the present case,
admittedly, the petitioners did not obtain minimum qualifying
marks in any of the four subjects of written tests and they also
could not obtain minimum qualifying marks when relaxed by
10% each as per proviso to Rule 7(9) of the 1997 Rules and
were unsuccessful candidates of written test and therefore
ineligible for the second stage of recruitment process i.e.
interview. Therefore, it is argued that the selection process of the
petitioners under Advertisement No. PA/01/2017 dated
23.03.2017 suffered from want of compliance of two mandatory
elements under the 1997 Rules, both of which went to the root
of the selection process due to performance of the petitioners
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
36/64
themselves, firstly, they did not qualify in the first stage i.e.
written test in any of the four subjects even on the relaxed
criteria and secondly, as a consequence of the petitioners being
unsuccessful even after the relaxed parameter they were not
eligible for the second stage i.e. interview and consequently
were never called for the mandatory interview stage.
Accordingly, it is argued by the learned counsel for the
answering respondents that the petitioners were never selected
as per the 1997 Rules being unqualified in first stage and
ineligible candidates for the second stage under the said
recruitment process and therefore, their services cannot be
regularized much less w.e.f. 30.10.2018. Moreover, under the
1997 Rules or the 2021 Rules, there is no provision for
regularization of such unqualified and ineligible candidates and
therefore, their said claim has been consistently rejected thrice
by the aforesaid Authorities after due consideration.
34. The learned counsel for the answering
respondents have also argued that it is a settled law that there is
no fundamental right in those appointed on contract to claim for
absorption or regularization as they cannot be said to be holders
of a post since a person can hold a post only after being
appointed on regular basis and further that once the period of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
37/64
contract is over, a contractual employee cannot be granted relief
of being directed to be appointed as regular employee. The
petitioners cannot say that because work has been taken from
them for past eight years, their service should be regularized.
The same is because of the Rule position and also because the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the State has a right to
enter into contract of personal employment and impose
conditions not inconsistent with the Constitution and there is no
compulsion for a person to enter into such a contract of service
and he is free to accept or reject the offer but having accepted it
he is bound by it. The learned counsel for the answering
respondent has drawn strength in support of his submissions
from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Orissa vs. Chandra Shekhar Mishra, reported as
(2002) 10 SCC 583; Secretary to Government, School
Education Department, Chennai vs. R. Govindaswamy and
others reported as (2014) 4 SCC 769 and Gridco Limited and
another vs Sadananda Doloi & Ors. reported as (2011) 15 SCC
16.
35. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel
for the answering respondents that though the petitioners have
claimed that the respondent-High Court has previously in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
38/64
year 2015 appointed P.As. substantively, who were originally
selected on ad hoc and on contractual basis but, the aforesaid
claim of the petitioners is misleading as the said persons
appointed in the year 2015 are not similarly situated persons as
they were appointed in the year 2015 on probation in terms of
proviso to Rule 7(9) of Part V of the 1997 Rules vide Notice
dated 07.11.2015. The said proviso empowers the High Court to
appoint candidates on probation for a period of one year who
have secured 10% less than the minimum qualifying marks in
any of the above four subjects of written test but have obtained
30% minimum qualifying marks in interview with the condition
that they will obtain the minimum qualifying standards within
the said period in respect of the subject of deficiency. This
proviso to Rule 7(9) was added vide Amendment to 1997 Rules
w.e.f. 18.9.2015 i.e. before the said appointment on 07.11.2015
and therefore, the Notice for interview dated 06.07.2015 also
clearly states "as per proviso advertised" and was duly
incorporated in clause 5 of Advertisement No. PA/01/2017 dated
23.3.2017 under which the petitioners had applied but, as stated
above, none of the petitioners could qualify the four subjects of
written test even with the said relaxation of 10% in the
minimum qualifying marks to be called for interview whereas
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
39/64
those appointed on 07.11.2015 had qualified with 10%
relaxation and faced interview before their appointment in terms
of the said proviso to Rule 7(9) of 1997 Rules. It is, therefore,
the contention that no parity can be claimed by the present
petitioners in so far as the recruitment in the year 2015 is
concerned. The petitioners have also claimed that they have
discharged the same duties as regular P.As. and they have also
satisfactorily discharged their duties. In this regard, the learned
counsel for the answering respondents has submitted that the
petitioners had participated in two direct recruitment process for
appointment on the post of P.A. vide Advertisement Nos.
PHC/02/2019 dated 21.9.2019 and PHC/03/2023 dated
23.8.2023. In both these recruitment processes, none of them
were successful. Thus, when with their claimed experience of
work of P.As. in the Patna High Court, the petitioners were not
able to obtain even the minimum qualifying standards in two
different direct recruitment for the said same post whereas other
fresh candidates even without such similar experience could
obtain them and qualify to be appointed on regular basis speaks
volumes about their competence and thus their being taken into
service would not be in the interest of administration of justice
of this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
40/64
36. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the
counter affidavit filed by the respondents. In the rejoinder
affidavit, it has been stated that the assertion of the answering
respondents that the petitioners had failed to qualify the
minimum standard and even the relaxed minimum standard is
not correct since no statement of marks was ever published by
the High Court showing individual/separate marks of each
candidate. The petitioners only came to know through the notice
dated 31.03.2018 that they were amongst the unsuccessful
candidates who were called for to be engaged on contract basis.
37. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
next submitted that they have duly qualified a harder/tougher
examination, viz. the English Shorthand Typing Test and English
Typing Test which were held on 16.12.2018. It is the categorical
submission for the petitioner that the statutory accuracy of 90%
in English Shorthand Typing test and 95% in English Typing
Test have been successfully qualified under clause 5 of the letter
of engagement. Therefore, it is the submission that in view of
clause (6) of the aforesaid letter of engagement, the petitioners
having successfully qualified in the test conducted on
16.12.2018, should have been appointed against the regular
substantive posts.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
41/64
38. In this case, the petitioner no.2 namely,
Sunny Katyayan has filed a supplementary affidavit stating that
during the pendency of this writ petition he has been appointed
as Stenographer (English) in the establishment of Civil Court,
Nawada and therefore, he had decided to resign from the
services of this Court in order to enable him to join in the Civil
Court. The petitioner no.2 states that he reserves his right to
prosecute the present writ as well as the right to hold the post of
P.A., in the event this writ petition succeeds.
39. I have considered the elaborate pleadings and
the records of the case and also considered the submissions
advanced by the parties.
40. Before proceeding with the matter, the
preliminary objections raised by the answering respondents is
required to be dealt with. In the considered opinion of this
Court, the objections raised by the answering respondents is not
appealing this Court in view of the fact that the respondent-High
Court had itself repeatedly granted extensions of engagement of
the petitioners and therefore, the question of limitation does not
arise from the date of examination conducted on 16.12.2018 and
in the same background, the suppression of material facts also
assumes lesser relevance. Further, the question of regularization
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
42/64
of the petitioner in the ministerial establishment of the High
Court squarely falls within the purview of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, this writ petition is held to be
maintainable.
41. Now, coming to the case, the Patna High
Court vide a public advertisement dated 23.03.2017 had
advertised for direct recruitment to 100 vacant permanent posts
of P.A. and responding thereto, candidates including the instant
petitioners duly applied and appeared in the first phase of the
recruitment examination i.e. the online test held on 10.12.2017
in the following manner, as mentioned in notice dated
07.12.2017:-
i. Test-I: Shorthand Dictation and (28 minutes)
Typing Test
ii. Test-II : Knowledge of Computer (10 minutes)
Application Test
iii. Test-III : English Language and (20 minutes)
Grammer Test
iv. Test-IV : English Typing Test (10 minutes)
Total (68 minutes)
42. Pertinently, the online test, which consisted
of four tests, had individual minimum passing threshold as
elucidated in the aforenoted advertisement dated 23.03.2017. It
is imperative to note that the Patna High Court Officers and
Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1997 which
occupied the field and the relevant mode of recruitment for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
43/64
post of P.A. reads as under :-
“By direct recruitment on the basis of
(i) English shorthand-typing test with minimum
speed of 100 words and 40 words per minute
respectively.
(ii)Typing (English) speed of 40 words per
minute.
(iii)English language and grammar test.
(iv)Knowledge of Computer applications.
(v) Oral Interview.
The minimum qualifying standard will be :-
(i) Accuracy of 90 % in English Shorthand
typing test;
(ii) 95 % in English typing test;
(iii) 60 % marks in English Language and
grammar test;
(iv) 60 % marks in computer application test,
(v) 30 % marks in oral interview
Provided that except in regard to interview, if
any candidate secures 5 % less than the
minimum excepted marks in any of the above, he
may be selected purely on adhoc basis for one
year, during which period he will have to clear
the expected minimum qualifying standard in
two biannual tests held in respect of the subject
of deficiency. Unless regular appointment is
made by specific order, candidate will continue
to be an ad hoc appointee. If the candidate
clears the expected minimum qualifying
standard within the period of Ad-hoc
appointment, he shall be duly appointed in the
cadre on regular basis, failing which, he shall
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
44/64
be declared unfit for appointment in the cadre.
Provided further that those candidates, other
than above and other than in relation to marks
secured in interview, who secure 10 % below
the minimum expected the qualifying marks in
any of the tests aforesaid may be considered for
selection purely on contractual basis for a
maximum period of one year as Stenographer
on contract and if in biannual test held, he
fails to obtained the minimum expected
qualifying marks in the area of deficiency, his
contracts shall stand automatically terminated.
On clearing the test and attaining the standard
within the contract period, they may be
considered for appointment subject to vacancy.
The contractual consolidated payment would be
equivalent to the basic grade with no increment
or other benefits till they become eligible for
appointment in the cadre on regular basis.
xxx.”
43. The Clause-5 of the advertisement published
on 23.03.2017 reads as under:-
“5. Mode of Appointment
By direct recruitment on the basis of (i)
English shorthand-typing test with minimum
speed of 80 W.P.M. for 240 words only i.e. at the
rate of 80 W.P.M. for 3 minutes and 20 minutes
for its transcription along with 5 minutes for
revision of shorthand immediately after
dictation, followed by intensive in-house
training for three months thereafter (ii) Typing
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
45/64
(English) speed of 40 words per minute (iii)
English language and grammar test (iv)
Knowledge of Computer applications (v) Oral
Interview.
The minimum qualifying standard will
be:- (i) Accuracy of 90% in English Shorthand
typing test; (ii) 95% in English typing test; (iii)
60% marks in English Language and grammar
test; (iv) 60% marks in computer application
test, (v) 30% marks in oral interview.
Provided that, except in regard to
interview, if any candidate secures 10% less
than the minimum qualifying marks in any of the
above, he may be selected and appointed on
probation for one year with the stipulation that
within that period he will have to clear the
minimum qualifying standard in two biannual
tests to be held in respect of the subject of
deficiency; the probation may be extended, at
the discretion of the Chief Justice for up to two
further six months period with the similar
stipulation of clearing the minimum qualifying
standard in the test to be held.
Age:- Age of candidate as on 01st January 2017
shall not be less than 25 years and shall not be
more than 35 years”
44. Be it noted that the minimum qualifying
standard was prescribed as 90% in English shorthand typing
test, 95% in English typing test, 60% in English Language and
Grammer Test and 60% in computer application test. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
46/64
proviso to the aforesaid clause (5) also provisioned for a
relaxation of up to 10% in the following manner:-
Qualifying threshold Qualifying threshold after
under clause-5 of the relaxation under proviso
recruitment to clause-5 of the
advertisement recruitment advertisement
Test-I Shorthand Dictation and 90% 80%
Typing Test
Test-II Knowledge of Computer 95% 85%
Application Test
Test-III English Language and 60% 50%
Grammer Test
Test-IV English Typing Test 60% 50%
45. From the reading of the aforesaid Rules of
1997 as well as the stipulation contained in the Advertisement
dated 23.03.2017, it is clear that the aforesaid advertisement was
in consonance with the extant Rules.
46. Since none of the appearing candidates could
meet the prescribed minimum threshold or even the relaxed
threshold, it was decided that the top 100 candidates, from
amongst the non-qualified, would be engaged purely on
contractual basis for a fixed period of six months on a
consolidated pay of Rs 30,000/-, in order to meet the emergent
need of P.As. in this High Court. The individual engagement
letters were issued, which contained the stipulation under
clauses (5) read with clause (6) providing a path towards regular
appointment to the substantive regular post of P.A. on probation
by putting them on regular pay scale of the post plus usual
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
47/64
allowances. The tenure of such contractual employees were
extended from time-to-time and finally the examination as
stipulated under the clauses (5) and (6) of their engagement
letters were conducted on 04.11.2018, however the appearing
candidates again failed to meet the criteria and once again it was
decided by the Competent Authority to conduct a fresh
examination on 16.12.2018 in Court premises, which finally
resulted in 35 out of 41 candidates clearing the examination by
meeting the required minimum marks and 06 candidates failed
to meet such threshold and their contract was terminated.
Though the petitioners stood successful in the examination
conducted on 16.12.2018, but they were not appointed on
regular basis in pursuance of the clauses (5) and (6) of their
engagement letters and rather they were continued on
contractual basis on the very same terms and conditions on
which their initial engagement was made. Their tenure was
extended till the then upcoming regular recruitment process,
however, even subsequently the petitioners were continued on
contractual basis by extending their period of engagement, the
latest being the Office Order dated 05.09.2021.
47. This Court has duly noted that the notice
dated 30.10.2018 issued by the respondent-Registrar General of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
48/64
this Court, clearly mentions that the examination was for the
purposes of regularizing the services of the appearing
candidates. To lay ample emphasis, this Court deems it
appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
notice dated 30.10.2018, which is as under:-
“It is notified that qualifying examination/ test
of English Shorthand Typing and English Typing
test for regular appointment of 42. Personal
Assistants engaged on contract basis for a
period of six months, is going to be held on 4 th
November, 2018, as per notice containing
schedule, scheme & venue attached herewith.
Xxxx”
48. It is therefore patently clear, that the
examination which was conducted by the respondent authorities
on 16.12.2018 was an additional opportunity granted to the
petitioners in continuation with the examination conducted on
04.11.2018 which itself was clearly for the express of purpose of
regular appointment against the post of P.A. Therefore, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the examination conducted on
16.12.2018 was in pursuance of clauses (5) and (6) of the
engagement letters which was meant for regularizing the
services of the petitioners. Once the petitioners stood duly
qualified in the examination conducted on 16.12.2018, they
ought to have been appointed on regular substantive post of P.A.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
49/64
on probation as stipulated specifically under clause (6) of the
engagement letters, but instead of doing so, they were continued
on contractual basis on the very same terms and conditions on
which they were originally engaged. It is underscored that no
fresh engagement letters with modified or altogether new terms
and conditions were provided, and the terms and conditions of
original engagement letters were simply extended. This, in the
considered opinion of this Court, creates an incongruous
situation since if the stipulation regarding continuation of the
qualified candidates continuing on the same terms and
conditions is accepted, it would mean that clauses (5) and (6)
still subsist and therefore, the Competent Authority appears to
have decided to keep open the path towards regularization for
the petitioners, however till date no steps for regularization of
the service of the petitioners has been taken.
49. The contention of learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 3 and 4 that the decision dated 09.01.2019, by
which the Competent Authority had decided to continue the
services of the petitioners on contract basis, has changed the
terms and conditions of engagement, is not appealing to this
Court since no such express stipulation altering, changing or
modifying the conditions of engagement has been made by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
50/64
answering respondents. Therefore, this incongruous situation is
unsustainable and could not be allowed to perpetuate anymore.
50. Moreover, this Court has noted the following
aspects. Firstly, in clauses (5) and (6) of the engagement letters
of the petitioners, the respondents themselves had provided a
path towards regularization of the contractual service of the
petitioners subject to the condition of them qualifying the test.
Secondly, the respondents despite conducting the examination
on the pretence and for the express purpose of regularizing the
services of the contractual P.As, including the petitioners, had
failed to appoint the petitioners against substantive permanent
post even after admittedly they had duly qualified the
tougher/harder examination which was held on 16.12.2018.
Thirdly, the extensions of engagement tenure were granted
periodically to the petitioners by the respondent authorities
themselves which today stands cumulatively at about eight years
of continued uninterrupted service, which is akin and
indistinguishable to that of a regular P.A. appointed on a
substantive permanent post. Fourthly, during the continued
service of about eight years, there is nothing on record to show
that the work and conduct of the petitioners was/is
unsatisfactory.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
51/64
51. Though the learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 3 and 4 has heavily relied upon the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka
vs. Uma Devi reported as AIR 2006 SC 1806 to repel the claim
of the petitioners for regularization but, the aforesaid judgment
does not bar the petitioners’ claim since there is not an absolute
bar for regularization. The decision of Uma Devi (Supra) itself
carves out an exception for such cases where employees have
been working for a long period and were not appointed through
a backdoor or in violation of constitutional requirements. In the
present case, the appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to
be illegal but at best may be said to be irregular, and as such,
irregularity stood cured by virtue of the petitioners qualifying
the examination conducted on 16.12.218 together with long
continuation of service and multiple extensions of their
engagement.
52. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Dharam Singh (supra) has held as under:-
“10. It must be noted that the premise of “no
vacancy” is, in any event, contradicted by the
evidence on record. An RTI response of
22.01.2010 received from the office of
Respondent No.2 indicated existence of Class-IV
vacancies. Furthermore, I.A. No. 109487 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
52/64
2020 filed before this Court by the appellants
specifically pointed to at least five vacant Class-
IV/Guard posts and one vacant Driver post
within the establishment. That application also
set out the names of similarly situated daily
wagers who were regularised earlier within the
same Commission. No rebuttal was filed to the
I.A. The unrebutted assertion of vacancies and
the comparison with those who received
regularisation materially undermine the High
Court's conclusion that no vacancy existed and
reveal unequal treatment vis-à-vis persons
similarly placed. Selective regularisation in the
same establishment, while continuing the
appellants on daily wages despite comparable
tenure and duties with those regularized, is a
clear violation of equity.
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the
reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi
(Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced.
Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before
us is not an invitation to bypass the
constitutional scheme of public employment. It is
a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to
sanction posts despite the employer's own
acknowledgement of need and decades of
continuous reliance on the very workforce. On
the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a
distinction between illegal appointments and
irregular engagements and does not endorse the
perpetuation of precarious employment where
the work itself is permanent and the State has
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
53/64
failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent
decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of
India and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi
(Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify
exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the
use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of
basic parity where identical duties are exacted
over extended periods. The principles
articulated therein apply with full force to the
present case…
xxxxxx
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-
hocism” thrives where administration is opaque.
The State Departments must keep and produce
accurate establishment registers, muster rolls
and outsourcing arrangements, and they must
explain, with evidence, why they prefer
precarious engagement over sanctioned posts
where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is
invoked, the record should show what
alternatives were considered, why similarly
placed workers were treated differently, and how
the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to
the human consequences of prolonged
insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a
constitutional discipline that should inform
every decision affecting those who keep public
offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of
the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
54/64
their duties, and the material indicating
vacancies and comparator regularisations….
20. We have framed these directions
comprehensively because, case after case,
orders of this Court in such matters have been
met with fresh technicalities, rolling
“reconsiderations,” and administrative drift
which further prolongs the insecurity for those
who have already laboured for years on daily
wages. Therefore, we have learnt that Justice in
such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions,
but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed
timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a
constitutional employer, the State is held to a
higher standard and therefore it must organise
its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing,
create a budget for lawful engagement, and
implement judicial directions in letter and spirit.
Delay to follow these obligations is not mere
negligence but rather it is a conscious method of
denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for
these workers. The operative scheme we have
set here comprising of creation of
supernumerary posts, full regularization,
subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn
affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway
designed to convert rights into outcomes and to
reaffirm that fairness in engagement and
transparency in administration are not matters
of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
(emphasis supplied)
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
55/64
53. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jaggo Vs. Union of India (supra) relying on the judgment
passed in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India &
Ors., reported in (2024) 1 S.C.R. 1230 has made the following
observations:-
“20. It is well established that the decision in Uma
Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize
employees who have rendered long years of
service fulfilling ongoing and necessary
functions of the State or its instrumentalities.
The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor
entries and illegal appointments that circumvent
constitutional requirements. However, where
appointments were not illegal but possibly
“irregular,” and where employees had served
continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned
functions for a considerable period, the need for
a fair and humane resolution becomes
paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and
unblemished service performing tasks inherently
required on a regular basis can, over the time,
transform what was initially ad-hoc or
temporary into a scenario demanding fair
regularization. In a recent judgment of this
Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union
of India & Ors. [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230, it was
held that held that procedural formalities cannot
be used to deny regularization of service to an
employee whose appointment was termed
"temporary" but has performed the same duties
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
56/64
as performed by the regular employee over a
considerable period in the capacity of the
regular employee. The relevant paras of this
judgment have been reproduced below:
“6. The application of the judgment in
Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court
does not fit squarely with the facts at
hand, given the specific circumstances
under which the appellants were
employed and have continued their
service. The reliance on procedural
formalities at the outset cannot be used to
perpetually deny substantive rights that
have accrued over a considerable period
through continuous service. Their
promotion was based on a specific
notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a
selection process involving written tests
and interviews, which distinguishes their
case from the appointments through back
door entry as discussed in the case of
Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi
(supra) also distinguished between
“irregular” and “illegal” appointments
underscoring the importance of
considering certain appointments even if
were not made strictly in accordance
with the prescribed Rules and Procedure,
cannot be said to have been made
illegally if they had followed the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
57/64
procedures of regular appointments such
as conduct of written examinations or
interviews as in the present case…”
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the
initial label of the appellants’ engagements and
the outsourcing decision taken after their
dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface
labels and consider the realities of
employment: continuous, long-term service,
indispensable duties, and absence of any mala
fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that
light, refusing regularization simply because
their original terms did not explicitly state so,
or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly
introduced, would be contrary to principles of
fairness and equity.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects
workers' rights and job security. In the private
sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an
increase in precarious employment
arrangements, often characterized by lack of
benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for exploiting
workers and undermining labour standards.
Government institutions, entrusted with
upholding the principles of fairness and justice,
bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When public
sector entities engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
58/64
trends observed in the gig economy but also sets
a concerning precedent that can erode public
trust in governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of
which India is a founding member, has
consistently advocated for employment stability
and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's
Multinational Enterprises Declaration
encourages companies to provide stable
employment and to observe obligations
concerning employment stability and social
security. It emphasizes that enterprises should
assume a leading role in promoting employment
security, particularly in contexts where job
discontinuation could exacerbate long-term
unemployment.
xxxx
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government
institutions, often face multifaceted forms of
exploitation. While the foundational purpose of
temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade
long-term obligations owed to employees. These
practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is
essential, recurring, and integral to the
functioning of an institution are often
labeled as "temporary" or "contractual,
even when their roles mirror those of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
59/64
regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite
performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary
employees are frequently dismissed
without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines
the principles of natural justice and
subjects workers to a state of constant
insecurity, regardless of the quality or
duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression:
Temporary employees often find
themselves excluded from opportunities
for skill development, promotions, or
incremental pay raises. They remain
stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and
their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to
outsourcing roles performed by
temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers
with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to
bypass the obligation to offer regular
employment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
60/64
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and
paid leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security
subjects them and their families to undue
hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
xxxxx
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion,
it is imperative for government departments to
lead by example in providing fair and stable
employment. Engaging workers on a temporary
basis for extended periods, especially when their
roles are integral to the organization's
functioning, not only contravenes international
labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, the Government institutions can
reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation,
promote job security, and uphold the principles
of justice and fairness that they are meant to
embody. This approach aligns with international
standards and sets a positive precedent for the
private sector to follow, thereby contributing to
the overall betterment of labour practices in the
country.” (emphasis supplied).
54. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
recently reiterated the same in the case of Shripal & Anr. vs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
61/64
Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC
221 and has held as follows:-
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on
Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or
temporary employees cannot claim permanent
absorption in the absence of statutory rules
providing such absorption. However, as
frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself
distinguishes between appointments that are
“illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the
latter being eligible for regularization if they
meet certain conditions. More importantly,
Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify
exploitative engagements persisting for years
without the Employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment. Given the record which shows no
true contractor-based arrangement and a
consistent need for permanent horticultural
staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
recruitment, though real, cannot justify
indefinite daily-wage status or continued
unfair practices.”
(emphasis supplied)
55. Applying the law from the afore-quoted
judgments and considering the peculiar facts of the present case,
it emerges that the path towards regularization was provided by
the respondents itself in the engagement letters under clauses (5)
and (6). At no point of time, the stipulation under clauses (5) and
(6) was found illegal nor the same was modified, altered or
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
62/64
withdrawn. On the contrary, with each subsequent extension on
the same terms and conditions, the aforesaid clauses subsisted.
The petitioners have continuously served for the past about eight
years and during this period no adverse conduct was found.
Further, pertinently the nature of work of the petitioners is
indeed perennial and the work is also undoubtedly akin and
indistinguishable to that of the P.As. appointed on substantive
regular post. Further, there is nothing in the counter affidavit to
show that the engagement of the petitioners on contract basis
and the subsequent examination on 16.12.2018, in which they
were ultimately found successful was de hors the engagement
letters or the Rules. At the cost of repetition, the path for
regularization of services of the petitioner through an
examination was provided by the respondents itself and now the
respondents cannot turn around to contend that the examination
was for limited purpose of considering their case for
regularization. Further, the respondents have not been able to
bring any document to show that there has been an adverse work
and conduct report against the present petitioners.
56. Considering the aforesaid discussions and
also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as
indicated in the preceding paragraphs, this Court in the peculiar
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
63/64
facts and circumstances of the case of this case and also in the
interest of justice, deems it appropriate to direct the respondents
to regularize the services of the petitioner nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 with
effect from the date of filing of this writ petition i.e. 09.05.2024
within four weeks from today.
57. This Court, upon considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case directs for regularization of
the petitioner nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 with effect from the date of filing
of this writ petition in order to strike a fair balance between the
competing submissions advanced by the parties and adhere to
principles of equity, fairness and non-arbitrariness.
58. As a consequence of the regularization of
services of petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, they shall be entitled to
only momentary benefits from the date of regularization which
shall be made effective from the date of filing of the present writ
petition. Further, the order shall not affect the present and settled
seniority in the cadre in which the petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5
are being regularized.
59. The petitioner no.2 has duly resigned from
the engagement in order to join his services in Civil Court,
Nawada and after its acceptance the relationship flowing from
the letter of engagement has been severed permanently.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8108 of 2024 dt.09-01-2026
64/64
Therefore, the reliefs which has been granted is limited to the
petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 only.
60. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, the present writ petition is allowed in the above
terms.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar/-
Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 13.10.2025
Uploading Date 09.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…