- (1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or mandamus as the case may be against the respondents who have not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization on the vacant post in the pay scale of Rs. 2550 -55 -2660 -60 -3200/while the cases of juniors to the petitioner respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been considered and their services have been regularised making full discrimination from man to man vide Memo No. 227 dated 16.2.2002 issued by the respondent No.4 while the case of the petitioner is better footing as he has joined as Roller Khalasi vide Memo No. 2233 Patna dated 13.8.1982 and since then he is serving the respondents in different places as per direction issued by the respondents from time to time and his case has also been considered for appointment on the post of "Karya Bharit  Asthapna vide letter No. 5289 dated 24th December, 1985 and though the petitioner has been serving the department for more than 22 years continuously and still serving.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under: - The petitioner was appointed in the regular pay scale vide Memo No. 2233 dated 13.8.1982 as Mali on muster roll at Hazaribagh and his period of work was extended from time to time. Thereafter a letter No. 5289 dated 24.12.1985 was issued by which the services of the petitioner including two other persons were considered and approval was granted. Finally vide an Office order dated 10.7.1992 the services of the petitioner was adjusted with effect from 3.7.92 and a direction was issued by the higher authorities to supply the list. The Executive Engineer supplied the list to the Chief Engineer on 25.4.2000 wherein the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No.12. Altogether 13 persons names were recommended after full verification for regularisation but strangely nine persons were recommended vide an Order No. 227 dated 6.2.2002 in which at Serial Nos. 8 and 9 one Chandrama Yadav and Tilak Saw were included, who were not even in list of 13 recommended candidates excluding the name of the petitioner herein. It was in this background that the petitioner being aggrieved preferred this writ petition challenging Memo No. 227 dated 16.2.2002 on the ground of discrimination and double standard. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that he is working uninterruptedly since 1982 and his services were adjusted and also recommended for regularization in the list of 13 names supplied however the authorities included the name of two persons who were not even in the list nor were daily wagers and deleted the name of the petitioner which amounts to clear cut violation and double standard. He further submits that the entire action is arbitrary, mala fide and on the face of it illegal and the petitioner has worked for more than 27 years as on date.
(3.) THE respondents in their counter affidavit have not denied the aforesaid facts except stating at paragraphs -7 and 8 as under: - "7. That with regard to this writ application some relevant facts are required to be brought before this Hon'ble Court. It is clear from the letter No. 832 dated 25.8.1989, letter No. 925 dated 23.9.1989 and letter No. 7 dated 6.1.1990 the Chief Engineer, National Highway -wing, Bihar, Patna by the letter No. 5289 dated 24.12.1989 had appointed Sri Anirudh Singh (petitioner) in work charge establishment post. But because the post was not vacant, the petitioner was deputed by the Executive Engineer to collect Toll taxes at the bridge of Suraj Kund on daily wages. 8. That so far as this division is concerned the petitioner Sri Anirudh Singh started his service from 13.8.85 in this office of the Assistant Engineer, N.H. Sub -Division, Bagodar under this division. From A.E., N.H. Sub -Division, Bagodar letter No. 68 dated 1.8.05 it is clear that the petitioner did not complete 240 days continuous service prior to 1.8.05 which was a necessary condition for regularization of service from daily wages to work charge establishment. It is to be noted that the service of the petitioner was not continued after November, 1982 as contained in Annexure -1/A of writ petition. Further there is no record to show that the petitioner was in service from November, 1982 to 24.12.1985. ;