IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.107 of 2009 INDRADEO SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3/ 21/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims the relief of regularization on the ground of having worked for more than ten years in the capacity of a daily wager. Pursuant to certain earlier orders of this Court the claim has been considered by the Committee concerned. The Committee has opined that his initial appointment was itself illegal made during his minority. A daily wager holds no post. The question of his regularization simply does not arise has been held in (2006) 2 SCC 702 (M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava) at paragraph-15 as follows:- “15. A daily-wager doe not hold a post unless he is appointed in terms of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He does not derive any legal right in relation thereto.” This has been reiterated in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA Versus UMA DEVI) confining the relief of regularization by ten years of working to those on permanent post. Subsequently 2 the Supreme Court explaining Uma Devi (supra) has held in (2010) 4 SCC 179 (Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar) at paragraph Nos.8 and 12 as follows:- “8. In Umadevi (3) case this Court held that the courts are not expected to issue any direction for absorption/regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees. This Court held that such directions issued could not be said to be inconsistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment. This Court held that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the directions sought for by the appellants cannot be granted. 12. …….The Constitution Bench has, therefore, clearly drawn a distinction between temporary employees, daily wagers and those who were appointed irregularly in the sense that there was non-compliance with some procedure in the selection process which did not go to the root of the selection process. The appellants in our view will not fall in the category of the employees mentioned inn para 53 read with paras 15 and 16 of the Constitution Bench judgment.” There is no pleading in the writ application that the daily wage appointment of the petitioner was against a vacant sanctioned post when the subsequent judgement in (2010) 9 SCC 247 (STATE OF KARNTAKA V. M.L. KESARI) may have come to the petitioner’s aid. But, again his difficulty surfaces as his original daily wage appointment was itself illegal being underage as 3 mentioned in the impugned order, not denied in the writ application. There is no merit in this application. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)