IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14904 of 2009 1. BRAHMDEO PRASAD VERMA S/O BAIJNATH SHAW RESIDENT OF GANDHI NAGAR, P.O., P.S. & DISTT- AURANGABAD 2. MAHESH PRASAD VERMA S/O BAIJNATH SHAW R/O SHAHAPUR, P.O., P.S. &DISTT- AURANGABAD 3. BABU LAL PRASAD S/O LATE GANESH SHAW R/O BIRATPUR, P.O., P.S. &DISTT- AURANGABAD 4. VINESH KUMAR S/O SRI DHANUSDHARI YADAV R/O VILL- CHOTAKI BELA , P.O., P.S. &DISTT- AURANGABAD 5. RAMBALI YADAV S/O SRI CHAMAN YADAV R/OVILL PIPERDIH, P.O., P.S. &DISTT- AURANGABAD 6. DILIP KUMAR S/O SRI KAMESHWAR PRASAD R/OVILL ,P.O. OBERA (BEHIND BLOCK OFFICE), DISTT- AURANGABAD 7. MAHENDRA PRASAD S/O SURENDRA PRASAD R/O MOH PURANI MUFFFASIL, DISTT- AURANGABAD ------------ Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH PARAMANDAL, GAYA 4. THE DISTRICT - MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD, DISTT- AURANGABAD ----------------- Respondents. ----------- 2 23-11-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners claim to be Class IV daily wages employees in the Aurangabad Collectorate. Their claim for consideration to appointment in the capacity of “Umidwar Anusewaks” is on an alleged advertisement published in the year 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.6640 of 2007. Service Jurisprudence has undergone vital changes after the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of , Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Even prior to that date, the settled law was that the - 2 - daily wagers hold no post and cannot claim for regularization as it was not a mode of appointment. Any appointment on a Government post has to be by open advertisement and selection on competitive merit in accordance with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any Advertisement of the year 2000 and preparation of a panel thereunder, there has no relevance in the year 2009. Even while this Court holds that daily wagers hold no post and cannot claim regularization equally long continuance of daily wages against sanctioned vacant post shall also not be countenanced by this Court as long duration of daily wager on a sanctioned vacant post is itself indicative of the need for personnel on the post. If that be so, a daily wage appointment continued inefinitely against a sanctioned vacant post is a fraud of the constitution of India. It is the privilege of the Respondents to make appointment or not to make appointment and no mandamus can issue for the same but simultaneously the Respondents cannot resort subterfuge by making daily wage appointment for inordinately long periods against sanctioned vacant post. Such appointments can obviously be for consideration only . - 3 - This Court, therefore, directs that if regular sanctioned vacant posts are available, the respondents are directed to take decision for appointment within a maximum period of six months from today. If they decide not to make regular appointment, there shall be no justification for continuing daily wage appointment against such sanctioned vacant post .After expiry of six months, the Respondents are restrained from making or continuing any daily wage appointee on such post. It is expected that if they propose to make a regular appointment on such sanctioned vacant post, proper advertisement and procedure shall be initiated and if the petitioners apply for the same , they shall be given adequate relaxation of age and their work experience etc. The writ application stands disposed. NKS/- ( Navin Sinha, J)