IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4957 of 2010 1. Jagannath Prasad S/O Late Bhola Ram R/O Kushe Narayanpur, P.S.- Hussainabad, Distt.- Palamu 2. Baleshwar Prasad S/O Late Bhola Ram R/O Kushe Narayanpur, P.S.- Hussainabad, Distt.- Palamu Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Chief Engineer-Cum-Special Secretary Null Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Superintending Engineer Public Health Engineering Deptt., Patna Circle, Patna 4. The Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Patna West, Patna 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer Public Health Engineering Deptt., Patna West, Patna 4/ 30/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The claim in this writ application by the two petitioners who are stated to be muster roll workers is for regularization. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that persons similarly situated in capacity of daily wagers have been regularized on 1.11.2007 as detailed in Annexures-6 and 7 after the Constitution Bench judgment reported in (2006) 4 SCC (Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi). The petitioners are being subjected to hostile discrimination. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is not in employment since 1989. The question of regularization does not arise. In Uma Devi (surpa) it has been held at 2 Paragraph-43 that daily wagers, contractual appointees and casual workers were not entitled to be considered for regularization as a one time measure on completion of ten years in service under Paragraph-53 of the judgment. Directions contrary to the same by Courts led to the clarification by the Supreme Court in (2010)4 SCC 179 (Satya Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Bihar). If the respondents have regularized any daily wagers contrary to the same no legal right accrues to the petitioners for demanding perpetuation of an illegality contrary to law. In (2010) 11 SCC 455 (Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab) it has been held at Paragraph-11 as follows:- “11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far 3 otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible.” It remains a matter for the respondents to examine if such persons were regularized suo motu or on directions or orders of a court of law. The respondents are therefore expected to reexamine their own actions, if any, contrary to the law and take necessary corrective action but only after hearing the concerned. The writ application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)