IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8050 of 2008 Binod Kumar, son of Sri Bilat Singh, resident of village Pokharbhinda, P.S. Sakatpur, District- Darbhanga. …………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.Lalit Narain Mithila University, through the Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 3.The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 4.The Registrar, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga at Darbhanga 5.J.M.D.P.L. Mahila College, Madhubani (Bihar) through its Principal, District- Madhubani 6.The Principal J.M.D.P.L. Mahila College, Madhubani, District- Madhubani. …………… Respondents ---------------------------------- 4. 06/09/2011 Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to regularize his services on the post of Instructor (Computer) on the ground that he is working in the College since 1995. As per his case, pursuant to local advertisement, as contained in Annexure-2, petitioner was engaged on mutually agreed daily wages on part time basis as Computer Instructor by the Principal of the College on 1.9.1995, vide Annexure-5. It is admitted position that the petitioner got his wages till April, 1998. Thereafter it was stopped. At one point of time in 1997 College intimated the University, vide 2 Annexure-7, about engagement of persons on daily wages and sought for funds for payment to them. The University also by notification dated 27.2.1997, vide Annexure-8, sought for applications from the candidates working on daily wages for their regularization. Petitioner did submit his application, vide Annexure-9, within time. However, admittedly, after April, 1998 payment of the petitioner was stopped although he claimed that he continued in the College as Instructor and was assigned duties from time to time. From notification dated 22.12.2001, as contained in Annexure-11, it appears that pursuant to some orders of this Court, all Head of Departments, Principals of Constituent Colleges and other authorities were asked to submit report with regard to daily wagers working under them, who were stopped working by order of the Vice Chancellor dated 1.3.2001 and directed them to report on work from 3.1.2002. Another office order was issued on the same line by the Registrar dated 4.1.2002, vide Annexure-12. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that his name was not recommended by the 3 Principal in compliance to the notification (Annexure-11). Hence, he directly submitted his application before the Registrar vide Annexure- 13 dated 15.1.2002. Grievance of the petitioner is that the same has not been considered so far although vacancy exists in the College. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to Annexure-11 names were received in the University and the same was processed and a panel of 196 persons was prepared and they were regularized. In the said panel name of the petitioner was not there. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was appointed directly by the Principal which had no approval by the University. Admittedly, petitioner got his wages only till April, 1998 although he claimed that he continued to work in the College upto February, 2001 when under the orders of the Vice Chancellor entire daily wage employees were stopped from working. Even if it is accepted, the fact remains that since March, 2001 petitioner is out of service. It is also not established from the records that the 4 petitioner’s name was duly recommended by the Principal of the College to the University pursuant to the notification of the University, as contained in Annexure-11. Cause of action arose, if any, at that very time for which petitioner has filed this writ application in 2008. No daily wages employee has a right to be regularized. The only claim which the petitioner could set up was of discrimination had he been able to show that although in the report submitted by the Principal of the College name of the petitioner was also there, but other persons were regularized leaving out him. This also is not established from any documents on record. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. It is for the respondents to consider whether or not it is in the interest of the Institution that the petitioner’s experience is utilized by his engagement again. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)