IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.688 of 2010 1. Anirudh Jha S/O Late Mangani Ram Jha R/O Vill +P.O.Paw Ram , P.S.Hayaghat, Distt-Darbhanga 2. Ambika Saran Yadav S/O Sri Ramvilash Yadav R/O Vill +P.O. Machhi,P.S.Behari, Distt-Darbhanga 3. Hari Shankar Mishra S/O Sri Chakdrakant Mishra R/O Vill +P.O. Hathori, P.S.Hayaghat, Distt-Darbhanga 4. Suman Kumar Chaudhary S/O Sei Deochand Chaudhary R/O Vill Govindpur, P.O .Laheriasarai, P.S.Bahadurpur, Distt-Darbhanga 5. Sunil Kumar Jha S/O Sri Tej Narain Jha R/O Vill Kabilpur, P.O.Laheriasarai, P.S.Bahadurpur, Distt-Darbhanga 6. Jitendra Prasad Singh S/O Sri Ram Deo Singh Vill+P.O.Hayaghat, P.S.Hayaghat, Distt-Darbhanga 7. Shiv Shankar Chaudhary S/O Sri Kashi Naresh Chaudhay R/O Vill Sahora, P.O.Anandpur, P.S. Ashok Paper Mill , Distt-Darbhanga 8. Brij Nandan Singh S/O Sri Rajendra Pd. Singh R/O Vill Koliabad, P.O.Hayaghat, P.S.Hayaghat, Distt-Darbhanga 9. Ram Vishekh Kunwar S/O Lal Bahadur Kumar R/O Vill Gangapatti, P.O. Bahadurpur, P.S.Bahadurpur, Distt-Darbhanga 10. Shankar Pd. Singh S/O Sri Rampukar Singh R/O Vill Kaghara, P.O.Bhatwara, P.S.Hathori,Distt-Samastipur 11. Kunwar Singh S/O Sri Kasho Singh R/O Vill +P.O. Taroni, P.S.Bahadurpur, Distt-Darbhanga 12. Shailendra Kumar Singh S/O Sri Rajeshwar Singh R/O Vill Rustampur,P.O.Hayaghat, P.S.Hayaghat, Distt-Darbhanga 13. Sanjeev Kumar Singh S/O Sri Ramkant Singh R/O Vill Maksoodpur, P.O.Hayaghat, P.S.Hayaghat ,Distt-Darbhanga Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel & Administrator Reform Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 5. The District Magistrate Darbhanga 6. The Deputy Collector District Nazarat, Darbhanga ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: Dr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kamla Kant Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jai Shankar Barnwal, SC 1 with Mr.Sanjy Kumar, AC to SC I ------------- 3. 29.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. 2 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.2008 declining to regularize their services from their status of daily wagers on which they claim to have been working since 1984 – 1989 in the Darbhanga Collectorate, pursuant to the directions of this Court in CWJC No. 15452 of 2005 for consideration of their cases as a one time measure in the light of directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is their case that they were appointed on daily wages despite availability of sanctioned vacant posts. Their services have been utilized for inordinate long period of time and it is now therefore not fair to throw them out of service when they may not be eligible for any employment elsewhere. The petitioners also contend that their appointment on daily wages despite availability of vacant sanctioned posts on that date brings them within the ambit of directions of the Supreme Court in (2010) 9 SCC 247, State of Karnataka Vs M. L. Kesaria. Counsel for the State has opposed the application to submit that daily wagers are not entitled to be considered for regularisation. The impugned order holds that they were not appointed against the vacant sanctioned posts. In the case of Uma Devi (Supra) itself the Constitution Bench has held at para 43 that persons on daily wage, casual basis, contractual appointment, do not hold any post and therefore the question of their regularisation does not arise. It is apparent that the directions given in para 53 to consider for regularisation as a one time measure those who have worked ten years or more deals only with irregular appointment and not illegal appointments and does not take within its ambit daily wagers at all. In fact the Supreme Court as far back 3 as (1996) 11 SCC 77 (State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh) has held at para 10:- “10. The respondents, therefore, in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the regular pay scale of the regularly employed.” While exercising powers of judicial review over the impugned order the Court cannot go behind the order to reascertain facts unless the petitioners are able to demonstrate any perversity in the same by refusing to consider relevant materials that they may have placed before the Committee. No such material has been placed before the Court. On the contrary the order states that necessary informations were sought for from the Collector based on the claims presented by the petitioners. The Committee then arrives on the conclusion that they were appointed without availability of sanctioned vacancy. It was next submitted that the impugned order has not been passed jointly by the three members of the Committee but by two of them only. On the own showing of the petitioners there was substantial compliance of the order of the Court when two out of three members of the Committee have considered the matter. Setting aside the findings of the Committee on that ground may only revive an illegal situation for a direction to consider daily wagers for regularisation impermissible in law. 4 To that extent the Court finds no merit in the writ application which is accordingly dismissed. If the respondents publish an advertisement and the petitioners apply in response to the same fulfilling the requirements, the Court expects the respondents to more appropriately consider issues of age relaxation and weightage of past experience as a matter of policy. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)