AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the University.
This writ application has been filed after service of two advance copies on 17.11.2014 to the office of learned Advocate General and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the University. Unfortunately, no counter affidavit has been filed either on behalf of the University or the State.
The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner was apprehending adverse action against him.
From the pleadings, it appears that the case of the petitioner for regularization was favourably recommended by the University and thereafter the
case of the petitioner and other similarly circumstanced were under consideration before the State Government.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similarly circumstanced others have been favoured with regularization, but the petitioner has
received information that a decision adverse to his interest was taken, but that decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner has never been
communicated. This position has not been disputed by the respondents that the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization by the State
Government has not been communicated, as yet.
If the decision has not been communicated even after four long years of filing of the writ application, the Court has reason to believe that no such
order exit. It is now well settled that order in file is no order unless it is communicated. Reference in this connection may be made in the case of
Bachhiter Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 395 and reiterated in the case of State of Bihar Etc. Etc. Vs. Kripalu Shankar Etc. Etc.,
reported in AIR 1987 SC 1554.
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to above, if any decision in file adverse to the interest of the petitioner has not been
communicated as yet, such order cannot be taken as existing and as such the present writ application is disposed of as premature.
However, liberty shall be available to the petitioner to file appropriate application, if any adverse order is passed contrary to the interest of the
petitioner.
In the event, no such decision is taken as yet, the State Government is required to take appropriate decision on the favourable recommendation of
the University in the light of the Full Bench Decision in the case of Braj Kishore Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 1997(1) PLJR 50,9
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others. Vs. Umadevi and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC ,1 the
decision in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 24 7and also in the case of Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar &
Ors., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265.
Necessary decision on the claim of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the recommendation of the University must be taken by the
respondents, if not taken as yet, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the light of the
observations made herein above.
In the event, any adverse decision is taken by the respondents, liberty shall be available to the petitioner to challenge the same before the
appropriate forum/court in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the writ application stands disposed of.