IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.422 of 2009 MD. TOHID . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3/ 24/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks mandamus to consider his case for regularization/absorption on a regular vacancy of roller driver. It is his contention that he was appointed as a daily wage employee in 1997 in Sheohar at Sitamarhi. It is fairly acknowledged that he is not in service since 1996. The claim is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. An additional ground has been taken that a person similarly situated has been regularized on 5.1.2008 who had likewise been terminated along with the petitioner in 1996. The judgment in Umadevi’s case (supra) itself makes a distinction holding that a daily-wager holds no post and the question of his regularization does not arise. Directions given from time to time by certain Courts for consideration to absorb/regularize daily- wagers who had completed more than ten years service by placing reliance on the same led to the Supreme 2 Court explaining its own judgment in (2010) 4 SCC 179 (Satya prahash & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) that the benefit of Umadevi’s case (supra) shall not be available to daily-wage employees. The benefit was available only to those who were working on permanent posts and whose appointment had been made with irregularity in process, but not illegal. The question of regularizing the services postulates a pre-condition that the person is still in service. One who was inducted in daily wage and no more in service since 1996 on his own admission, has to be considered for fresh appointment and there is no occasion to consider him for regularization/absorption by re-inducting in service. Any regularization done of another contrary to law cannot be pressed as a ground by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution to perpetuate an illegality. The Article does not operate in negativity. The Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)