IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15753 of 2009 1. BAIJNATH PRASAD GUPTA S/O SHEONATH GUPTA VILLAGE - KORHA, P.S.- KORHA, DISTT.- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KATIHAR 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR NAZARAT KATIHAR ----------- 2. 17.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner in his capacity as a daily wager claims regularization on basis of an alleged panel prepared for the purpose in 1999-2000. It is his case that a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 8827 of 2000 and CWJC No. 4408 of 2001 had directed for their appointment from the panel by order dated 3.10.2001. While the petitioners have been denied appointment, long after in the year 2006 appointments are being made from the same panel. The law stands settled in (1997) 4 SCC 88 (State of U.P. & ors. v. Ajay Kumar) that daily wagers have no right to claim regularization. This has been consistently followed in several decisions holding that a person working on daily wages holds no post and, therefore, the question of his regularization does not arise. Regularization was not a mode of appointment. A daily wager could only apply in response to an open advertisement and be considered along with others when he may be given preference of his past experience etc. The fact that appointments may have been made in the year 2006 as alleged from a panel of 1999-2000 is a gross illegality. The law stands well settled that any panel cannot have a life beyond one year as it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it would 2 shut out from consideration fresh applicant who may be eligible thereafter. This is the view taken in (1997) 2 SCC 556 (N. Mohanan v. State of Kerala & ors.) and reiterated in (2009) 2 SCC 706 (Giridhar Kumar Dadhich and another v. State of Rajasthan & ors.). If the authorities have committed an illegality contrary to the mandate of the Constitution, the petitioner cannot seek assistance of Article 14 of the Constitution in negativity for a mandamus to commit the same illegality with him also. In so far as the order of this court dated 3.10.2001 is concerned, even if the directions therein be considered, by virtue of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court dated 10.4.2006 in Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. V. Uma Devi & ors. (2006(2) PLJR 363 (SC), it has been held in paragraph 45 as follows : “45. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.” The next submission on behalf of the petitioner is from paragraph 44 of the judgment of Uma Devi (supra) that as a one time measure such persons like the petitioner are to be considered for regularization, if they had worked for more than 10 years. This Court is afraid that is not the ratio of the judgment of Uma Devi (supra). In paragraph 39 of the same judgment. the Supreme Court has held that notwithstanding the fact that a person may have worked for a long period on daily wages in the exigency of the work that would not result in change of his status so as to vest in him a claim 3 for regularization, reiterating that a daily wager could not be treated at par with a candidate in regular establishment and that he held no post to claim regularization. The Supreme Court declined to give any direction for regularization of daily wagers. It is, therefore, apparent that the observations in paragraph 44 of the judgment were not with regard to daily wagers, who have been clarified in paragraph 39 to form a class by themselves. They do not fall within the category of irregular appointment considered in paragraph 44 which otherwise deals with illegal and irregular appointments and directs regularization of irregular appointees. If a daily wager holds no post, the question of calling him irregular appointee simply does not arise. “Irregular” connotes a situation where the appointment was in regular establishment in accordance with the procedure but there were certain infirmities in the procedure. There is no merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. This Court holds that the Respondents cannot make any appointment from the panel of 1999-2000 contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution as discussed above. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)