Pradeep Kumar Malik, formerly the Principal District and Sessions Judge in Gaya, has been transferred on deputation and posted as the Chairman of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal in Patna, according to the notification issued by the Patna High Court on August 14, 2026. Earlier, he was serving as Registrar General, Patna High Court but was transferred on March 26, 2026 by the order of the High Court which was issued by Registrar, Establishment. He had joined as Registrar General on February 5, 2024. He was succeeded by Shiv Gopal Mishra.
Malik has served as Registrar I.T.-cum-C.P.C, Patna High Court from August 22, 2017 till October 12, 2018 and as Officer on Special Duty, Patna High Court from September 9, 2019 till March 2, 2020. He served as Registrar, State Commission Consumer Protection, Patna from July 6, 2021 till September 1, 2022. He is a law graduate who joined Bihar Superior Judicial Service directly from Bar on May 7, 2010.
Notably, prior to his transfer from the High Court, Justice Sandeep Kumar had passed a judgement dated January 9, 2026 directing regularization of the petitioners against the vacant permanent substantive posts of Personal Assistants (P.A.s) in the establishment of the Patna High Court, who were continuing on contract basis since their initial engagement from March-April, 2018, and to grant them all consequential benefits including regular pay scale and admissible allowances upon regularization of their services with effect from October 31, 2018. Malik was one of the four Registrar Generals of the High Court during 2017-2026. The other three were-Bidhu Bhushan Pathak, Navneet Kumar Pandey, Arun Kumar Jha.
It all began after the High Court published an advertisement on March 23, 2017 on its website inviting eligible candidates for direct recruitment to 100 vacant posts of P.A. under the ministerial establishment of the High Court and usual allowances as admissible under the Rules.
Responding to the advertisement, the petitioners had applied. Pursuant to the recruitment process, the Online Test for recruitment to the post of P.A.-2017 was conducted on December 10, 2017. On March 31, 2018, it was notified vide notice issued by the Registrar General of the High Court, that none of the appearing candidates including the present petitioners, met the minimum qualifying standard mentioned in Clause-5 of the Advertisement No. P.A./01/2017 and consequently none had qualified. In other words, all the candidates including the petitioners were unsuccessful. By the same notice, it was notified that owing to pressing need of manpower due to acute shortage of P.As. and in order to meet the requirement and exigencies of this Court, it was decided to engage top 100 candidates, from amongst the non-qualified candidates, purely on contractual basis for a period of six months on a consolidated pay of Rs.30,000/- only per month subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in their engagement letters, which was issued individually to each of the candidates. The tenure of their contract was further extended till conclusion of the then upcoming direct recruitment on the same terms and condition as originally engaged on the post of P.A.
The counsel for the petitioners relied on paragraph-10 of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, wherein, the Court had held that long and uninterrupted service cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of the employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of the work and the fact that no evidence suggests that their entry was illegal or surreptitious. On the strength of the Court's decision rendered, it was argued that the case of the present petitioners squarely justifies regularization since, firstly, the nature of work dispensed by the petitioners are perennial and fundamental to the working of the High Court. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their regularization on regular substantive post, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. Secondly, the work of the instant petitioners is not only essential but also indistinguishable from those regular appointees who are working as regular P.A.s in this Court. Thirdly, the petitioners are not back-door entrants since their engagement letters itself provisioned for a path towards regularization upon qualifying the examination as per clauses (5) and (6) of their engagement letters and after successfully qualifying the examination conducted by the respondent authorities on December 16, 2018, the petitioners have a crystallized lawful claim for regularization of their services. The denial of the regularization by the respondent authorities was a glaring case of misuse of label of ‘engagement on contract basis’ and denial of basic rights and benefits of the petitioners.
The petitioners' had relied on para 5 of the Supreme Court's decision in Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327, wherein, the Court held that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous services of the petitioners performing duties indistinguishable from those on permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement.
The petitioners' counsel also relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dharam Singh & Ors. vs State of U.P. & Anr. reported as 2025 (4) PLJR (SC) 152 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735. The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had now reached the upper age limit and therefore they could not appear for any public employment and further the petitioners have been serving this Court, since April, 2018.
Unlike submissions by the Registrar General of the High Court, Justice Kumar's judgment is covered by Supreme Court's decisions. Is it rational, fair, defensible, normal and natural to keep the appointment of the Registrar General of the High Court to be "regular" and contend that the job of the P.A.s of the High Court in the "irregular" mode? Irrationality manifests itself in myriad ways. The just course of action which could not be taken during the tenure three Registrar Generals ought to be rectified after Justice Kumar's judgement by Rupesh Deo, the new Registrar General when the matter is heard before the Division Bench.
No comments:
Post a Comment