Ashesh Kumar Chaudhary v. Lalit Narayan Mithila University And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15739 of 2016 ====================================================== Ashesh Kumar Chaudhary Son of late Dr. Vishudhanand Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Nehra, P.O.- Nehra, P.S.- Manigachi, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
Lalit Narayan Mithila University 2.
The Vice- Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.
3.
The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. null null 4.
The Head of the P.G Department, Home Science, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Da 5.
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patn ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Vvinay Kumar Mishra, A.C. to AAG-15.
For the University :
Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the University.
2. The petitioner submits that in the present writ application, the petitioner is claiming relief of regularization/absorption in service.
3. On specific query made by the Court as to whether on the date of filing of the writ application, the petitioner was in service, meaning thereby whether the contract of employment was subsisting, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner very
Patna High Court CWJC No.15739 of 2016(12) dt.17-11-2025 2/2 fairly submits that on the date of filing of writ application claiming relief of regularization, the petitioner was not in service, and therefore, no contract of employment was subsisting. It is by now well settled that for claiming relief of regularization/ absorption, the contract of employment must subsist. The present writ application, is therefore, dismissed as not maintainable for claiming relief of regularization because on the date of filing the writ application the petitioner was not in service.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J) sanjeev/- U