IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6598 of 2010 1. Jitendra Prasad Singh S/O Sri Nand Kishore Singh R/O Vill Itwa Nonia Bigha, P.S.Navi Nagar, Distt-Aurangabad, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger 2. Pramod Jha S/O Markandey Jha R/O Vill Shibi Patti, P.S.Rajnagar, Distt-Madhubani, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger 3. Rudra Kant Jha S/O Sri Badri Jha R/O Vill Padumker, P.S.Patahi, Distt-East Champaran, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger 4. Shri Niwas Tiwari S/O Sri Chandradeo Tiwari R/O Vill Paurnra, P.S.Suryapura, Distt-Rohtas, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger 5. Ramadhar Singh S/O Sri Basudeo Singh R/O Vill Ararua, P.S.Saleya, Distt-Aurangabad, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger 6. Vishhu Mouar S/O Sri Ram Suresh Mauar R/O Vill Barki Kharaon, P.S.Sahar, Distt-Bhojpur, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger 7. Hari Kishore Prasad Sinha S/O Sri Awadh Kishore Parasad Sinha R/O Vill Belan Bazar, P.S.Kasim ,Distt-Munger, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger 8. Shoshan Mahton S/O Sri Godho Mahton R/O Vill Patelpur, P.S.Suryagarha, Distt-Lakhisarai, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger 9. Ram Vilash Kuer S/O Sri Ramodar Kuer R/O Vill Kisura, P.S.Suryagardha, Distt-Lakhisarai, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger 10. Nageshawar Prasad Gupta S/O Sri Jageshwar Prasad R/O Vill Chhoti Sandalpur, P.S. Kasim Bazar, Dist-Munger, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger 11. Raghunandan Prasad Yadav S/O Sri Genari Yadav R/O Vill Shaukerpur, P.S.Mufassal Thana, Munger, Distt-Munger, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger 12. Vijendra Prasad Yadav S/O Sri Genari Yadav R/O Vill Paharpur, P.S. Chauki, Distt-Lakhisarai, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger 2 13. Shiromani Singh S/O Sri Mukund Singh R/O Vill Sagdaha, P.S.Khaira, Distt-Jamui, Daily Wages Retrenched Empolyee Of Irrigation Department Ganga Pump Canal Division, Surgraha Camp, Munger Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Commissioner Cum Secretary, Water Resources Department Bihar, Patna 2. The Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. Secretary To Personnel And Administrative Reforms Department Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. Deputy Secretary To Government Personnel And Administrative Reforms Department Government Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department Bhagalpur 6. The Executive Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal Division Suryagrha Camp, Munger ----------- 3. 16.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. No counter affidavit has been filed despite a passage of over one and half years from the filing of the writ petition. The petitioners who are stated to have been retrenched in 2003 from the Ganga Pump Canal Division, Suryagraha Camp, Munger are aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-11 series passed by the three man committee in pursuance of the reference made to it in C.W.J.C. No. 4032 of 2006 preferred by the petitioners in light of the Constitution Bench judgment in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi). Counsel for the petitioners fairly acknowledges that the original claim for regularization pursuant to an appointment on daily 3 wage sought in C.W.J.C. No. 6478 of 1988 and analogous cases was not upheld when directions were only given if the posts are advertised and the petitioners fulfill the requirements they should be considered against 50% vacancies by appropriate relaxation of age to the extent of continuous service rendered by them as daily wage. This attained finality when the Special Leave Petition preferred against the same was unsuccessful. The petitioners were compelled to approach the Court again because the respondents have proceeded to fill up the posts without following the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution by open advertisement thus denying the petitioners a right to apply and be considered as directed in C.W.J.C. No. 6478 of 1988 and analogous cases. Once the claim for regularization was declined in C.W.J.C. No. 6478 of 1988 and the matter attained finality inter partes, the Court is not satisfied that the petitioners can file repeat applications for the same relief and in pursuance of which the reference to the three man committee came to be made in the latter writ petition without adverting to the facts of each case. Suffice it to notice that the directions given 4 in C.W.J.C. No. 6478 of 1988 were more in the nature of policy decisions which the respondents are obliged to consider appropriately in accordance with law. Simultaneously, the respondents cannot be permitted to evade that obligation by resorting to other methods of appointment, as alleged, contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution which mandates open advertisement and competitive merit selection. If what the petitioners contend is correct and appointments are being made without open advertisement and competitive merit selection whether by adjustment of retrenched/daily wagers, the Court has no hesitation in holding that procedure being adopted by the respondents is wholly illegal in view of the discussion contained in Paragraphs 43 and 55 of the judgment of Uma Devi (supra). That such retrenched/daily wagers do not come within the category of the person discussion in Paragraph- 53 entitled for regularization as a one time measure having completed 10 years of service, and that such consideration can be limited only to those irregularly appointed on vacant sanctioned post and not illegally as subsequently explained in (2010)3 SCC 115 (State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak & Ors.) and again in (2010) 5 4 SCC 179 (Satya Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). The only exception permissible for the respondents is as explained subsequently in (2010) 9 SCC 247 (State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M. L. Kesari) with regard to those appointed in the aforesaid capacity but against a sanctioned vacant post and had worked for over 10 years. The respondents are therefore precluded from making any appointments by regularization and/or absorption further on the posts that the petitioners lay a claim except in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. In view of the above discussion, the order of the three man committee looses its relevance as it does not and cannot affect the consideration of the claim of the petitioners in the manner directed in C.W.J.C. No. 6478 of 1988. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)