IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10786 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Binay Kumar Srivastava S/O Late Shiv Shankar Prasad R/O Moh Jai Prakash Nagar, Betia, P.S.Betia, Distt-West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Chief Engineer , Water Resources Department Balmikinagar, At Betia, Distt-West Champaran 3. District Magistrate Motihari, Distt-East Champaran, Motihari 4. District Magistrate Betia, Distt-West Champaran 5. Executive Engineer Tirhut Nahar Division No.2, Betia, West Champaran 6. Sub-Divisional Officer Tirhut Nahar Division No.2, Betia, West Champaran 7. Superintending Engineer Tirhut Nahar Anchal , Betia, West Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta Mr. Gaurav Kumar Mr. Alok Ranjan For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 3 09-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner who was working on daily wages and claims to have completed more than 240 days in that capacity between the years-1988-1989 is aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.2010 which rejects his claim for regularization. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Patna High Court CWJC No.10786 of 2010 (3) dt.09-11-2011 2 under the Circular of the State Government dated 16.3.2006 those who had completed 240 days of service on or before 11.12.1990 even in daily wages were required to be considered for regularization. The petitioner has in fact completed 240 days of service prior to that date and the impugned order is factually incorrect. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned order. The fact whether the petitioner has completed 240 days of service or not prior to 11.12.1990 is not relevant at all in terms of the law laid down in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi) that a daily wager holds no post and therefore has no claim for regularization. In (2006) 2 SCC 702 (M.P. Housing Board vs. Manoj Shrivastava) it has been held that completion of 240 days of service may have relevance in an adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, but is of no relevance to found a claim for regularization of service. Circulars like the one dated 16.3.2006 pressed into service being contrary to Article-14 of the Constitution as held in (2009) 5 SCC 193 (Pinki Chatterjee vs. Union of India) is of no avail to the petitioner. Regularization pre-supposes presence in service in some capacity. If on his own showing the petitioner is not in Patna High Court CWJC No.10786 of 2010 (3) dt.09-11-2011 3 service since 1989, the question of his regularization does not arise and it is a claim for fresh appointment when the requirements of Article-14 by publication of advertisement and comparative merit selection have to be complied with. There is no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state that if the petitioner applies in response to any fresh advertisement, his case has to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law and policy. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)