IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1513 of 2009 1. UMA SHANKAR PASWAN S/O LATE RAGHUNI PASWAN R/O VILL- RASHIDPUR, P.S & DISTT- SHEOHAR 2. RAJDEO PASWAN S/O LATE MAJAN PASWAN, R/O VILL- RASHIDPUR, P.S & DISTT- SHEOHAR 3. LAL BABU RAI S/O SRI RAMASHISH RAI R/O VILL, P.S & DISTT- SHEOHAR. ….. PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR SHEOHAR 4. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SHEOHAR, DISTT- SHEOHAR 5. INCHARGE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, DISTT- NAZARAT, SHEOHAR, DISTT- SHEOHAR. … RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. ---------- For the appellants : Mr.Y. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Raju Giri, adv. ----------- 3. 12.05.2010 In this intra-court appeal, the appellants-writ petitioners have assailed the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 13715 of 2009 wherein their prayer for regularization on sanctioned post of driver in Sheohar District has been rejected. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of appellants-writ petitioners 2 reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is wholly misplaced inasmuch as there was already an interparte order which cannot be said to have lost its precedential value. In this context, he has invited our attention towards the order of this Court dated 5.12.2005 in LPA No. 801 of 2004 which according to him being an interparte order binds the respondents. Attractive though the aforesaid submission may be, the appellants- writ petitioners cannot claim regularization on the basis of alleged panel as contained in Annexure- 1 to the writ application. First of all, annexure- 1 is a panel of working Ummidwar Peons/ Jharukash/Driver but then the penal was confined only for 40 Ummidwar Peons only. The Schedule Kha enclosed to the aforementioned panel containing the seniority list of drivers working on daily wages cannot be held to be a panel strictly in terms of Government Circular of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department bearing Letter No. 16440/16441/3.12.1980 and the Circular of the Board of Revunue dated 26.5.1987 which 3 are strictly confined to Ummidwar Peons only. The appellants on the post of driver even on daily wages cannot be regulated by a panel to be prepared in terms of the aforementioned circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 3.12.1980 and/or Circular of the Board of Revenue dated 26.5.1987 inasmuch as they do not even remotely refer to preparation of panel for drivers which is absolutely a different post with a higher pay-scale than the post of peons which has to be filled up from amongst the Ummidwar Peons. This aspect of the matter therefore has been squarely kept in separate compartment. This also becomes visible from the reading of documents as contained in Annexure-1, wherein the panel is only confined to Ummidwar Peons and seniority list of drivers. Assuming that there was a panel also prepared for driver the life of such panel in terms of the circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department was confined to only one year and subject to its renewal from year to year basis. Learned Single Judge therefore has rightly held that the life of panel dated 5.11.2000 had automatically come to an end on expiry of period of one 4 year and the reliance placed by him on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Girdhar Kumar Dadhich & anr. Vs. State of Rajsthan & Anr., reported in 2009 (2) SCC 706 laying down the law no panel can have a life beyond a year would be squarely applicable in the case of the appellants- writ petitioners. This Court would also find that there was no such direction in the alleged interparte order which had an effect of making appointment on the post of driver from a panel whose life had already come to an end on 4.11.2001. In fact, the Division Bench on an earlier occasion in this regard had merely observed as follows:- “….On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the judgment and order coming under appeal, we are satisfied that this matter does not merit any interference in the internal court appeal. These appeals are accordingly dismissed subject to the observation that the order of this Court is not to be construed to mean that the respondent-authorities are under any direction to fill up all the existing vacancies. The decision with regard to the number of vacancies to be filled up would lie with the concerned authorities but as and when they proceed to fill up those vacancies, appointment must be made from the panel, dated 5.11.2000, a copy of which was Annexure 24 to CWJC No. 9431 of 1998. At the same time it must also be clarified that the 5 concerned authorities shall not resort to any under hand method, such as, engaging outsiders to do the work being done by the daily wagers whose names figure in the panel in order to defeat their rights…” From the reading of the aforementioned text of the order of the Division Bench dated 5.12.2005 it would be clear that they were referable to and could be made application only if the respondents were to make appointment on the post of drivers. There is nothing on the record to show that the respondents have made appointment of any of the drivers from the panel dated 5.11.2000. The submission of Mr. Giri that direction for appointment should now be read as direction for regularization, a prayer which was made by the appellants –writ petitioners in the connected writ application has to be only noted for its being rejected. The concept of regularization of service always connotes an existence of sanctioned posts under the budgetary provisions and an entry of the persons sought to be regularized after following the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution and that is how the judgment 6 Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) has to be understood. Here when the appellants-writ petitioners were claiming regularization of their service from daily wage which also stood terminated with effect from 27.12.2000 as has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 17.5.2004 in CWJC No. 13412 of 2000 and CWJC No. 9431 of 1998 there would be nothing left for this Court to hold that the daily wage driver who had already been terminated from service with effect from 27.12.2000 could be regularized in service inasmuch as a terminated employee cannot claim regularization of service. As with regard to claim of the appellants-writ petitioners for appointment on the post of driver, it is found that in the panel of 11 persons who were placed at Serial No. 7, 9 and 10 and when the appointments were made against seven sanctioned vacant posts by the Collector of the District after following the roster and reservation as per the Government Policy, the appellants- writ petitioners 1, 2 and 3 pertaining to scheduled castes and backward castes could not find place inasmuch as the post of scheduled caste had already stood filled up in the 7 earlier transaction of appointment of three persons dated 15.9.2004 and the solitary post of backward category was filled by the appointment of Sanjay Kumar who was at serial No. 4 in the seniority list whereas Lal Babu Rai, appellant-writ petitioner no. 3 was at serial no. 3. It has to be kept in mind that as the persons of category of appellants-writ petitioners namely Sanjay Kumar of backward category at Serial No. 4 and Ramanand Paswan of Scheduled Castes Category at serial no. 6 were placed above the appellants-writ petitioners at Serial No. 7, 9 and 10, their appointments were not permissible against seven sanctioned posts of driver sought to be filled up by the order dated 23.6.2008. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter was also gone into in the contempt application being MJC No. 2788 of 2006 filed by the persons included in the seniority list of the drivers wherein following orders had been passed: “Vide Annexure- A to the supplementary show cause, seven drivers from the panel of eleven at Schedule- Kha of Annuexure-24 to the contempt application has already been made. “Under the circumstances, any contempt of this Court’s order dated 5th December 2005, as passed in L.P.A. No. 801 of 2004 and 838 of 2004 is not being 8 noticed at this stage. The contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of.” In view of the above, the appellants-writ petitioners cannot claim any benefit of the so-called interparte order dated 5.12.2005 passed in LPA No. 801 of 2004 and LPA No. 838 of 2004 for appointment on the post of driver inasmuch as this Court has already held that the same had been complied by making appointment of seven persons. Thus, the appointment of the appellants- writ petitioners on the post of driver could not have been made on account of their being placed at the lower position in the seniority list dated 5.11.2000 and therefore regularization of course was out of question at least in terms of the order of Division Bench dated 5.12.2005 in LPA No. 801 of 2004 and LPA No. 838 of 2004. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. Before parting with this case, this Court, however, must observe that if the respondents make a fresh advertisement for filling up the vacant sanctioned post of drivers, the case of the appellants-writ petitioners will also be considered by giving them relaxation of age 9 for the period they had rendered services on daily wages. With the aforementioned observation, this appeal is disposed of. kanchan (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)