IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13810 of 2002 ANANDI RAO son of late Gopal Rao, resident of village- Tengahara, P. S. Barhat, Distt. Jamui, presently working as daily wages Class- IV employee at Dev Sundari Memorial College, Jhajha, P. S. Jhajha, Distt- Jamui… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, State of Bihar, New Secretariat Patna. 3. The Director, Higher Education, State of Bihar New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Tilka Manghi Bhagalpur University Bhagalpur, through its Registrar, Distt. Bhagalpur. 5. The Vice-Chancellor, Tilka Magh Bhagalpur, University, Distt- Bhagalpur. 6. The Registrar, Tilka Manghi Bhagalpur University, Distt- Bhagalpur. 7. The Deputy Registrar, Tilka Manghi Bhagalpur University, Distt- Bhagalpur. 8. The Principal, Deo Sundari Memorial College, Jhajha, Distt- Jamui. … Respondents. ------- 3. 30.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for the University. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “(i) For quashing the impugned order contained in Memo no. B/1882050 dt. 30.08.99 (Anneuxre-9) issued by the respondent no. 7 and it is follow up order issued by respondent no. 8 as contained in letter dt. 16.09.99 (Annexure-10) by which Nine Employees were directed not to work from their service to the Deo Sundari Memorial College, Jhajha at Jamui. ii. Further for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularized the service of the petitioner and also to pay the arrears of salary as well as current salary.”. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned prayer would submit that the issue 2 having been decided against similarly situated persons by this Court a special leave petition was filed by one of them, Vishundeo Singh and notices have been issued in this matter by the Apex Court. He would therefore submit that this Court should await for the result of the aforementioned special leave petition. From the counter affidavit it becomes very much clear that the appointment of the petitioner was made without following the prescribed procedure and in fact he was engaged on daily wage without following the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that there is no right of regularization among such daily wagers save and except that whenever substantive posts were sought to be filled up by way of regular appointment, they have to appear in the selection process. In this case, there is a clear averment on the part of the University that when the posts were advertised, the petitioner did not file application for such regular appointment on the ground that the University had recommended his case for regularization to the State Government. There can be no estoppel against the university if it chooses to 3 recommend for creation of posts and also sends name of the petitioner for his being regularized against such post. The petitioner was still having a limited right as daily wages employee and once this Court would find that the Government itself had directed for termination of such daily wagers, the University had no option but to remove such daily wagers. That being so, once the order of removal of the petitioner was justified and his regularization is also impermissible in the light of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi(3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This Court is also not aware of the facts of the case of Vishundeo Singh about which it is claimed that that the matter is pending before the Apex Court inasmuch as nothing has been said in this regard in the writ petition about similarity of his case to Vishundeo Singh. Thus, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) 4