` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2829 of 2004 Prabhat Kumar s/o Late Jaggu Thakur resident of Bhadraghat P.S.Alamganj Dist. Patna Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary Science and Technology, Patna 2. The Director, Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Principal, State Polytechnic, Gulzarbagh, Patna-7 Respondents -------------- For the petitioner: Mr Rajendra Sharma, Advocate For the State: Assistant counsel to SC 9 -------- 05/ 22.07.2010 Petitioner was a daily wager and was working under the Principal, State Polytechnic, Gulzarbagh, Patna. He initially started working as daily wager on class IV post from Ist July, 1989 and the nature of work taken from him was that of a guard. The petitioner sought regularization and absorption and a recommendation in this regard was made by the then Principal to the Department of Science and Technology based on a circular of the State Government where preference was to be given to Home guard trained personnel. Petitioner was one of them but regularization order never came. Certain steps were taken for making regular appointment by the respondents for which an advertisement was made. Some persons approached this high court in CWJC No. 5130 of 1995 for regularization. The court observed that those petitioners will have opportunity to participate in the recruitment process when initiated. There was direction for advertisement of the posts, which was done. The petitioner approached this high court in CWJC No. 98 of 1999. He wanted a direction from this court for consideration of his - 2 - case in the light of the advertisement issued by the respondents for appointment to the post. Reason why petitioner had individually approached this court is evident because in the advertisement cut off date for consideration of cases of daily wager was fixed at 01.08.1985. Since the petitioner was an appointee of 01.07.1989 he did not come within the zone of consideration. He wanted from this court to declare that all daily wagers would be eligible to participate and the cut off date of 01.08.1985 was irrational and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner came to be decided by a decision dated 26.06.2003, a copy of which has been annexed at page 28 of the brief. The learned Single Judge in his order categorically held that cut off date 01.08.1985 cannot be said to be arbitrary. There was, however, observation that if the petitioner was still working on daily wages the authorities were at liberty to consider his case along with others in accordance with law (emphasis mine). Obviously with such an observation the respondents went ahead with the process of recruitment, keeping 01.08.1985 as the cut off date for all those persons who were working on daily wages. Since the petitioner missed the bus he is back again before this court seeking direction upon the respondents to consider his case for appointment or regularization as the case may be. One of the primary reasons for seeking such a prayer is the notification dated 10.05.2005 which came to be issued by the State Government subsequently by virtue of which cut off date i.e. 01.08.1985 got extended to 11.12.1990. According to the counsel for - 3 - the petitioner if the State Government themselves have decided to extend the cut off date may be on a subsequent date, petitioner gets a right for consideration. Two aspects are significant in this case. First, petitioner has been removed as daily wager, may be after filing of the writ application. He is no longer in the employment of the respondents and other aspect is that 2005 circular cannot apply to a person who is no longer employed as a daily wager. In addition whether the same can apply to a case where employment process has already been concluded by completing the recruitment process, in terms of earlier advertisement issued in the year 1996 and 1997 is another aspect. In opinion of the court the subsequent notification can not apply to concluded transactions. Both these aspects weigh against the petitioner. There is nothing to indicate that there is any post to be filled even at this stage and if at all whether the petitioner can be given benefit of regularization or appointment on the basis of subsequent circular issued in the year 2005 that too when he is no longer in employment under the respondents.. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. shahid (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)