Parity Over Precedent: Patna HC Dismisses State's Appeal Against Regularisation of LNMU Counter Clerk
The Patna High Court upheld regularisation of a college counter clerk whose identically situated colleagues had already been regularised, finding no intelligible differentia to justify different treatment.
A Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Ranjan Kumar Jha, dismissed the State of Bihar’s Letters Patent Appeal challenging a Single Judge’s order directing regularisation of Ugrasen Jha, a Counter Clerk engaged at H.P.S. College, Madhepur, under L.N. Mithila University. The Division Bench agreed that the case of Uma Devi (3) and the Full Bench ruling in Ram Sewak Yadav v. State of Bihar lay down settled law prohibiting regularisation of illegal appointments, but held that those precedents did not govern a situation where employees appointed under identical circumstances from the same staffing-pattern list had already been regularised pursuant to final orders of the same court. The judgment was delivered on 25 June 2026.
The Appointment and the Writ Petition
Ugrasen Jha was appointed as a Counter Clerk on a temporary basis on 10 November 1982 by the Principal of H.P.S. College, Madhepur, in anticipation of the State Government creating the post. By a letter dated 16 June 1984, the Principal recommended regularisation of his services. The State Government's notification dated 10 May 1991 permitted persons appointed prior to 10 May 1986 to continue in service and to be adjusted against future vacancies. Jha received nominal remuneration throughout this period. He was called for an interview on 23 July 1997, but his services were not regularised.
He filed C.W.J.C. No. 9047 of 2016 before the Patna High Court seeking absorption on a Class-III post along with consequential service benefits. By the time he filed the writ petition, he was on the verge of retirement.
The Single Judge's Findings
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 30 August 2024. The key findings were threefold. First, the University had, by letters dated 11 February 1981 and 16 February 1981, recommended sanction of thirty-one Class-III and Class-IV posts under the prescribed staffing pattern, and Jha’s name figured in the list of employees forwarded with that proposal. Second, four employees appointed along with Jha under identical circumstances had already been regularised pursuant to orders in C.W.J.C. Nos. 9215 of 1999 and 20099 of 2016, and those judgments had attained finality. Third, Jha had spent his entire working life at the college and had attained superannuation.
The Single Judge directed the respondents to pass a consequential order and to pay monetary benefits to Jha from the date of his initial joining within three months of receipt of a copy of the order.
State's Grounds in the Letters Patent Appeal
The State of Bihar, appearing through Mr. Ravi Kumar (AC to AAG-13), pressed four principal grounds before the Division Bench.
First, Jha was admittedly appointed against an unsanctioned post. The Principal of the College was not the competent authority to make appointments to Class-III posts under Section 10(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The appointment was therefore void ab initio.
Second, there was no advertisement, no open competitive selection, and no adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State argued that the Single Judge had failed to apply the settled principles in Ram Sewak Yadav v. State of Bihar, reported in 2013 (1) PLJR 964, which governed regularisation of illegal appointments.
Third, pursuant to directions in C.W.J.C. No. 9809 of 1998 and connected cases, 199 temporary employees were considered for regularisation; 196 were regularised against sanctioned vacant posts with weightage for temporary service. Jha was not found eligible. He did not challenge the notification dated 24 February 2005, which had thus attained finality.
Fourth, the writ petition was filed nearly three decades after the alleged appointment and only when the petitioner was approaching retirement. The State submitted that such delay disentitled him to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The State also argued that the cases relied upon by the Single Judge — C.W.J.C. Nos. 9215 of 1998 and 20099 of 2016 — concerned Lab In-charges appointed against posts that the University had recommended for sanction, placing those employees on an entirely different footing from Jha, who was a Counter Clerk appointed against an unsanctioned post with no pending University recommendation.
How the Division Bench Reasoned
Justice Sudhir Singh, writing for the Bench, framed the question squarely: whether the Single Judge was justified in directing regularisation despite the initial appointment having been made on a temporary basis against an unsanctioned post, by an authority alleged to lack competence, and without following the prescribed recruitment procedure.
The Bench accepted, without reservation, the proposition that an illegal appointment cannot be regularised. It quoted at length from the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, which held that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of the Constitution and that an appointment made without following due process of selection does not confer any right on the appointee. The Bench equally endorsed the Full Bench summary in Ram Sewak Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2013 (1) PLJR 964, which drew the line between illegal appointments (void ab initio, incapable of regularisation under any circumstances) and irregular appointments (capable of regularisation only on satisfaction of specific conditions, including appointment by a competent authority on a vacant sanctioned post through competitive selection).
The Bench then turned to whether those authorities actually governed Jha’s case. It noted that the University’s letters of 11 February 1981 and 16 February 1981 had recommended sanction of thirty-one Class-III and Class-IV posts in conformity with the staffing pattern. Jha’s name appeared in both the employee list forwarded with that proposal (Annexure-3) and in the Class-III/Class-IV employee list prepared under the staffing pattern (Annexure-4). Several employees whose names appeared in the very same list, appointed during the same period and under identical circumstances, had already been granted regularisation pursuant to final, implemented judgments in C.W.J.C. Nos. 9215 of 1999 and 20099 of 2016. The State did not dispute that those judgments had been implemented, and brought no material on record to show any distinguishing feature between Jha’s case and those employees.
The Bench held that the Single Judge had not directed regularisation solely on the basis of long continuance in service. The impugned judgment rested on Jha’s membership of the same staffing-pattern list and the parity already extended to identically situated employees. That factual foundation was materially different from the category of cases that Uma Devi (3) and Ram Sewak Yadav were designed to prohibit.
On the parity principle, the Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, which lays down that where relief has been granted to one set of employees, all other identically situated persons must ordinarily be extended the same benefit, and that not doing so amounts to discrimination violative of Article 14. The Bench acknowledged the exceptions carved out in Arvind Kumar Srivastava for fence-sitters who delay approaching the court. However, it observed that the State had produced nothing to bring Jha within any recognised exception.
The Bench upheld the Single Judge’s categorical finding that Jha stood on the same footing as the employees already regularised, that his name was part of the same list, and that those findings were borne out by the materials on record and had not been shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence.
The Division Bench concluded:
Outcome
The Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s view and dismissed Letters Patent Appeal No. 1154 of 2024. The State’s challenge was answered against it. All pending applications in the matter were also disposed of. The Single Judge’s direction to pass a consequential order and pay monetary benefits to Ugrasen Jha from the date of his initial joining within three months therefore stands.