IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7851 of 2009 RAM PRAVESH MAHTO . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3. 3.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims induction to a sanctioned vacant post by order dated 16.1.1981 from his earlier status of a daily wager. It is not his case in the pleadings that such induction from a daily wager to a regular sanctioned post was in pursuance of any advertisement much less open competitive merit selection. The appointment came to be terminated on 27.12.2001, reverting him to his status of daily wager as having been done contrary to law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that many persons junior to the petitioner have been regularized in pursuance of certain orders of this Court passed in the year 2002. The petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 7210 of 2002 against his termination and being relegated to the status of daily wager. Counsel for the State submits that contrary to the recitals contained in the order dated 16.1.1981 that the petitioner was being inducted on a sanctioned vacant post from his status of daily wager, in fact no sanctioned vacant post existed. 2 This Court is satisfied that the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate that his induction into the regular establishment, as claimed, was in accordance with law. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the appointment as a daily wager was but a prelude to a wrongful induction into Government service contrary to law. The fact that any other with whom he claims parity may have been regularized is of no avail to him in view of the judgment in 2006(4) SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors.) holding that all earlier decisions to the contrary directing regularization of such persons stands obliterated. The claim of a daily wager for regularization stands outside the purview of the judgment of the Uma Devi (Supra) as discussed therein, and clarified more particularly in (2010) 3 SCC 115, that daily wagers fall completely outside the purview of the guidelines for regularization as one time measure directed in Uma Devi. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.1.2008. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)