IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9598 of 1996 1. KAMESHWAR PANDEY son of Late Madan Pandey, resident of Village Bakhat Prasarain, Post Bakhat Prasara in P.S. Mufassil Betia, District-West Champaran. 2. Hari Narain Tiwari son of Sri Daroga Tiwari resident of village Bakhat Prasara in P.S. Mufassil Betia, District- West Champaran. 3. Dhrub Prasad son of Sri Mohan Prasad resident of village Mu. Purani Gudari Betia, Post- Betia P.S. Town Betia, District- West Champaran. 4. Chandar Prasad son of Sri Rajkeshwar Prasad resident of village Jokhan Gurwalia, Post Bharwa Tola, P.S. Muffassil, Betia, District- West Champaran. 5. Uma Shankar Pandit son of Sri Satyanarain Pandit resident of village and Post Dhumnagar Kachhari Tola P.S. Nautun, District-West Champaran. 6. Shukhlal Thakur son of Sri Kanchan Thakur resident of village and Post Dhumnagar Kachahari Tola P.S. Nautan, District- West Champaran. 7. Munna Sah son of Sri Bhola Sah, resident of Village Banwa Tola, Belbag Betia Post Belbag, P.S. Muffasil, District- West Champaran. --------------Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, District-West Champaran 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Betia P.S. Betia, District-West Champaran. ---------------Respondents. ----------- 4. 22.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners have challenged the decision of respondent no. 3, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Betia, by virtue of which the service of the petitioners have been terminated on the ground of absence of funds are allocation made by the State. No work was taken from these petitioners from 1.9.1996. 2 The petitioners have no fundamental right to be engaged by very nature of the work. Engagement was done on daily wages and if there was no funds available for the work for which they were being engaged the respondents have done no wrong by stoppage of work after due information. There is no infirmity in the order impugned (Annexure-1) which requires interference. The I.A. application filed subsequently challenging preparation of a panel is rejected. If the petitioners have a case a separate writ application could be filed challenging their exclusion or non appointment if there is an issue. In absence of any legal right of the petitioners and legal infirmity in Annexure-1, the writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)