IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17827 of 2009 Gauri Shankar Yadav Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 4/ 23/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Claiming regularization it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 28.4.2009 of the three man committee itself acknowledges that he had been appointed on daily wages against a vacant sanctioned post. Relying on (2010) 9 SCC 247 (STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Versus M.L. KESARI AND OTHERS). it is submitted that even as a daily wager the petitioner has a claim to be considered for regularization. To the extent submitted on behalf of the petitioner, the Court finds that his claim merits consideration. But regularisation is not a mode of appointment. On the facts emerging from the pleadings, it is a disputed question of fact whether the petitioner has been in employment even as a daily wager after 5.8.1999. Even if his earlier writ petition which led to the reference to the three man committee is taken into consideration, it was filed in 2006 seven years after the daily wage status had come to an end. Regularisation connotes presence in service in one form or the other. If 2 the petitioner is not in service in any capacity, the question of regularization does not arise, it becomes a case of fresh appointment when Article-14 has to be complied with. It is not possible for this Court to pass and or make any positive directions for regularisation. Whether the impugned order has been passed by all the three members or by one of them is hardly relevant as any defect in constitution of the Committee will not invalidate the order. Nothing in this order prevents the respondents from considering any representation of the petitioner in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court referred to above. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)