IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14165 of 2009 CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 10/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The relief claimed in this application is for setting aside the order dated 10.5.2005 declining to regularize the petitioner in service. The writ application has been filed on 28.10.2009. There is not even a whisper of a suggestion in the pleadings why the petitioner chose to sleep over the matter for over five and half years before approaching this Court. Delay is of extremely vital significance in service matters where issues of third party rights may also arise, quite apart from the cascading consequences that may follow for those already in service, if such belated writ applications are entertained by this Court. The Courts today are functioning under extreme pressure when one and all are concerned about the delay in disposal of cases. The yardstick relevant for consideration of delay in exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, which may have been relevant a decade or two back, perhaps, may not be relevant today as already held by this Court in CWJC No. 13410 of 2009. This Court today cannot afford to 2 allow those not vigilant about their own rights and choosing to move the Court at their own leisure and convenience to stifle the proceedings before this Court with regard to those who have been vigilant about their rights and have approached this Court well in time. On the own showing of the petitioner, he came to this Court earlier with a claim for regularization in CWJC No. 539 of 1999 and on 24.7.2003 this Court noticed as follows : “Prima facie, the petitioner’s entry in service appears to be by back door as the post does not seem to have been advertised nor any selection has been made.” This prejudicial observation has been accepted by the petitioner and he did not choose to challenge the same. The petitioner claims to have been appointed on daily wages on 27.10.1989. His services were then extended by six months on ad hoc basis by an order dated 30.12.1995. It was likewise again extended on 27.6.l996 in ad hoc capacity when he was given a show cause notice on 13.11.1998. The Courts have consistently held that daily wagers hold no post and are not entitled for regularization as it is not a mode of appointment. It is precisely with regard to the nature of the present 3 appointment when the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court 789 has observed that “Courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money.” On the own pleadings of the petitioner at paragraph 12 of the writ application it is apparent that he is no more in service after December, 1998. Whether it be the question of delay or laches, and alternatively consideration of the claim of the petitioner on merits, there is no merit in this writ application warranting interference by this Court. The writ application is dismissed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by those, who made his appointment and took him to up the garden path, it is always open for him to take recourse to the Civil/Criminal laws of the land. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)