IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13870 of 2011 Krishna Murari Sahay S/O Srinath Sahay R/O Mohalla- Maulabagh, Ara, P.S.- Ara Nawada, Distt.- Bhojpur--------------- -------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna, Bihar 3. The District Magistrate, Ara Bhojpur 4. The Conservator of Forest Patna Anchal, Patna 5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Bhojpur 6. The Range Officer Incharge Forest Area, Ara, Bhojpur ------- -------------------------------------------Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. After reading of Annexure-5 as well as Annexure-7 I do not find any infirmity with the decision of the respondent authority contained in Annexure-9 which is under challenge in the present writ application. Learned Single Judge has categorically held while disposing of the contempt application that in view of the law explained in (2010) 3 SCC 115 which is the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Ianpathy Chaya Nayak & Ors. the benefit for regularisation is not available to a daily wager and that they are outside the scope of consideration for regularisation issued in the case of Uma devi (Supra) by the constitutional Bench. Merely because learned Single Judge has observed that the respondents have an obligation under The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 has no co-relation to the issue raised by the petitioner because applicability of such a provision of law will come into play when the steps are taken to fill up vacancies and there is no right of the petitioner on the basis of observation made by learned 2 Single Judge contained in Annexure-7. In view of above there may not be an occasion to interfere with the reasoning given in Annexure-9. This writ petitioner is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)