IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13182 of 2009 RAMBHAWAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- W I T H CWJC No.13187 of 2009 DINESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 12/10/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners in these two writ applications claim to be working as daily wagers in Grade-IV under the District Magistrate, Jehanabad styled as “Unmeedwar Chaprasi”. To this Court, the very terminology by which the petitioners are described speaks eloquently of the modus operandi for appointment. Even if the contention of the petitioners be correct they claim empanelment in a panel of 1993 followed by another panel in 1998 and finally in a panel of 2001-2002. The law is well settled that daily wagers hold no post and the question of their regularization simply does not arise. Reference may be made to 2008(12) S.C.C. 286 (STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER Versus RABINDER SINGH). Moreover, the panel on the basis of which relief is sought has long 2 since expired. Judicial pronouncements have held that no panel can have a life beyond one year as they would violate Article-14 of the Constitution of India. The judgement of the Supreme Court in AIR 2006 S.C. 1866 (Secretary of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi) is a dividing line for claims for regularization as service jurisprudence continues to evolve. Judicial pronouncements earlier, giving directions for consideration of daily wagers for regularization no more hold the field. To that extent, the petitioners do not have any case for a mandamus to consider their case for regularization. The second contention is that they are being discriminated inasmuch as persons from the aforesaid panel have been appointed as late as on 25.7.2009. It is equally well settled that Article-14 of the Constitution of India does not operate in negativity to claim equality in illegality. On that ground also the petitioners have no claim. But, no appointment can be made without open advertisement and selection and that too from panel extinct in law. Any such appointment shall be in teeth of Articles-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, if the petitioners be correct in their contentions in that 3 regard. Even while this Court declines to entertain the writ application for grant of relief to the petitioners, it considers it proper to direct that the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya shall examine the order of other appointments dated 25.7.2009 in light of the aforesaid discussion and take appropriate action in accordance with law therewith. If the Divisional Commissioner were to hold that the assertions of the petitioners with regard to the impugned order dated 25.7.2009 are not correct, he shall be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order when the order may require no interference as otherwise if he is satisfied with regard to the assertions of the petitioners, he shall then proceed accordingly in accordance with law upon his satisfaction. Let this exercise be carried out by the Commissioner within a maximum period of one month and appropriate orders passed thereupon from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)