IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10976 of 2003 BRIJESH KUMAR TIWARY, son of Shri Haresh Ram Tiwary, resident of village- Gausia, P.S. Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna- 800001. 2. The Joint Secretary, Deptt of Health Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gopalganj. 4. The Medical Officer-in-Charge, Additional Primary Health Centre, Rasauti, Kateya, District- Gopalganj. 5. The District Collector, Gopalganj. …. Respondents. ----------- 3. 20.09.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief; “(1) That this is an application for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of Government as contained in letter no. 401(7) dated 13.3.2003 (Annexure-9) issued by the Respondent no. 2 and the consequential order as contained in Annexure 10 and 11, terminating the services of the petitioner, a daily wages worker in the establishment of the civil surgeon and for the issuance of any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to acclerate the process of appointment of grade IV workers at the District Level initiated in pursuance of the order of this Hon’ble Court and to regularize the service of petitioner, apart from making payment of the arrears of wages lying due, in the circumstances set forth below.” as also the order of appointment of the petitioner passed by Civil Surgeon, this Court is of the view that since such 2 appointment was made in teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the same would not confer any right to the petitioner for being regularized in service. The appointment letter of the petitioner dated 9.6.1989 annexed in this writ application reads as follows; Þdk;kZy;] vlSufud 'kY; fpfdRld lg eq[;fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] xksikyxat A vkns’k Jh o`ts’k dqekj frokjh] firk Jh gjs’k jke frokjh] xzke xksfl;k ftyk xksikyxat ds vkosnui= ij lgkuqHkwfr iwoZd fopkj djrs gq;s ,oa dk;Z dh izeq[krk dks ns[krs gq;s mUgsa nSfud etnwjh ij vxys vkns’krd izk0 Lok0 dsUnz xksikyxat esa dk;Z djus dh vuqefr nh tkrh gSA lkFk gh ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr HkRrk Hkqxreku djus dh Lohd`fr nh tkrh gSA g0 vkj0,u0 pkScs vlSfud 'kY; fpfdRld lg eq[; fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] xksikyxat AÞ From the reading of the aforesaid order it would be clear that it was a back door entry by which the petitioner was brought in the establishment of Health Department by Civil Surgeon, Gopalganj. It is also an admitted position that such daily wages appointment of the petitioner was never regularized and he had remained only as a daily wage employee till termination of his service by an order dated 23.3.2003. The respondents have explained in their counter affidavit that such action was taken when the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar had directed to make enquiry of all the illegal appointment made in the 3 Health Department on or after 1.1.1980 whereafter it was found that the petitioner had also continued in daily wages since 9.6.1989 by way of illegal appointment. The concept of regularization of an appointment which is in teeth of Article 14 and 16 has been deprecated by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., reported in 2006(4) SCC 1, which has also been further reiterated in the case of State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors., reported in 2009 (5) SCC 65 and recently in the case of Md. Ashif & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 156 (SC). All these judgments unequivocally have laid down that if the initial appointment was not made by following the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the relevant service Rules, there would be no question of regularization of service. In that view of the matter, this Court would find it difficult to follow an order of this court dated 8.9.2003 in CWJC No. 4702 of 2003 and its analogous cases which was itself not approved by this Court in the resultant appeal filed by the State of Bihar in the case of State of 4 Bihar & Ors. vs. Purendra Sulan Kit, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 386. Counsel then would rely on an order of this Court dated 15.4.2008 in CWJC No. 9991 of 2005. In the said order this Court had only gone into the issue of preparation of a fresh panel and inclusion of name of the person who was eligible in terms of advertisement/rules. Thus, if the petitioner has also applied for inclusion of his name in the district panel to be prepared by the Collector of Gopalganj district for making appointment on class IV posts, his case could also be considered for inclusion of his name but that would mean that his services could also be regularized. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)