Binay Yadav v. The Chancellor Universitites Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10185 of 2014 ====================================================== Binay Yadav, Son of late Ratan Yadav, resident of village Mirzapur, P.O. and P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Chancellor, Universitites of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna

2. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusha, P.O. and P.S. Pusha, District Samastipur

3. The Registrar, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusha, P.O. and P.S. Pusha, District Samastipur

4. The Principal, Bihar Agriculture College, Sabour, P.O. and P.S. Sabour, District- Bhagalpur

5. The Vice Chancellor, Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, Bhagalpur

6. The Registrar, Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, Bhagalpur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Pathak, Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Singh Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 05-11-2018 Considering the fact that the petitioner has regularly worked since 1984, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the University to take appropriate decision with regard to regularization of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka Vs. Uma Devi: (2006) 4 SCC 1 as also in the case of State of Karnatka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Keshari (2010) 9 SCC 247 and Amar Kant Rai (2015) 8 SCC 265.

If the petitioner has worked for nearly three decades as claimed by the petitioner, necessary decision on behalf of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.10185 of 2014(5) dt.05-11-2018 2/2 University will be taken within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

While taking decision the respondent University is required to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the litigation policy, 2011. If similar circumstances others have been regularized/granted the benefit of regular appointment, then the case of the petitioner may also be considered in the light of the litigation policy as well as the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2018(2) PLJR 929.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) spandey/- U