IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6273 of 2009 NANDLAL PRASAD & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 20.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order passed by the three Secretaries refusing their regularization in service. When this Court wanted to know the nature of appointment of the petitioners and has asked for the copy of the original appointment, which has not been annexed with the main writ application, counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court an order dated 1.11.1980 which would go to show that it is actually an order of payment of salary on daily wages. In fact the said copy of the order issued by the Executive Engineer even if is taken to be an engagement on daily wages the same would confer no right to the petitioner for regularization of their service. Such regularization of service in fact can only be permitted now by way of one time scheme and that too if the procedure for appointment following mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India was 2 followed at the time of initial appointment. Reference in this connection may be to the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006)4 SCC 1. Apparently such appointment of the petitioners is in the teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and would confer no benefit much less of regularization in service. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are other judgments apart from Uma Devi’s case which should be made applicable in the case of the petitioners. Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in that very judgment of Uma Devi (Supra) has held that the judgments given earlier will have no precidential value. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/