IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2755 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar Ghosh, son of late Patal Chandra Ghosh, resident of village & P.O. Jagdishpur, District - Bhagalpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Chief Secretary, Bihar Office at New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The D.M. Bhagalpur, District – Bhagalpur. 4. The D.D.C. Bhagalpur, District – Bhagalpur. 5. The B.D.O. Shahkund, Block – Shahkund, District – Bhagalpur. ----------- For the petitioner : Dr. Shashi S Kishore. For the State : M K Pathak, AC to GA 4. ---- 02. 5.7.2011 As per the assertions made in the writ application petitioner is working on a daily wage as a Computer Operator under the District Establishment of Bhagalpur from the year 2003. He has annexed a few documents to show that there are recommendations made in his favour by the District Development Commissioner to the District Magistrate to regularize him. Since the District Magistrate has not taken cognizance of those recommendations made by the subordinate, writ has been filed. This Court has to take into consideration the declaration of law on the issue made by the highest Court of the country in matters of such kind. Case of regularization or right for claim to such benefit has been dealt with in detail by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi. None of the parameters which have been laid down by the Supreme Court even by way of an exception or a one-time measure for 2 regularization brings the case of the petitioner within the ambit. Counsel for the petitioner also has not been able to produce any judgment or order which could support him to beget the relief which he is looking for despite the declaration of the Constitution Bench. If that be so, then mere asking for recommendation in favour of the petitioner by somebody down the list in the district administration would not create a right for regularization in favour of the petitioner. Based on the direction of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case, the State of Bihar has already issued circular in this regard in the year 2006. It goes without saying that any claim much less of the petitioner will also have to be tested on the basis of such circular, which any way has not been produced by the counsel for the petitioner but if an occasion of the kind arises then the decision in the case of Uma Devi and the Government circular will have to be taken into consideration by the concerned authority. In view of above, no direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner as no case as such is made out at this stage. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)