Respondent directed to dispose of representation for regularization of contractual Junior Engineers via reasoned order.

Thirty-four petitioners, serving as Junior Engineers on a contractual basis in the Building Construction and Public Health Engineering Departments of the Government of Bihar, challenged a decision dated 21.05.2026 issued by the Development Commissioner.

The impugned order directed the phase-wise termination of contractual Junior Engineers by the end of the financial year to facilitate regular appointments.

The petitioners sought quashing of this order, regularization of their services from their respective dates of appointment (ranging from 2017 to 2018), and a stay on their discontinuation.

Prior to filing the writ, the petitioners submitted representations to the Development Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) on 27.05.2026, which remained pending.

1. Whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash the termination of contractual services and order regularization while administrative representations are pending.

2. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to dispose of the petitioners' representations regarding their service conditions and the termination of their contracts within a specified timeframe.

The court applied the administrative law principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies and the duty of state authorities to act reasonably by deciding on pending representations.

The court emphasized the requirement for administrative bodies to issue "reasoned and speaking orders" when determining the rights of employees, ensuring transparency and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

The Court did not delve into the merits of the termination or the claim for regularization. Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse where the Development Commissioner failed to respond to the petitioners’ representations dated 27.05.2026.

Since the State’s counsel conceded to a direction for a time-bound disposal of the said representations, the Court found it efficacious to remand the matter to the administrative level.

The Court reasoned that a speaking order from the respondent would clarify the State's position on the phase-wise termination and the petitioners' eligibility for regularization before judicial intervention is finalized.

It directed Respondent No. 2 (Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar) to consider and decide upon the petitioners' representations dated 27.05.2026 within 90 days of receiving the court order via a reasoned and speaking order, while granting petitioners liberty to file supplementary representations.