IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4834 of 2009 Jai Mangal Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 3. 29.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2.2.2009 passed by the three men committee declining to regularize his services in terms of the reference made by this Court in CWJC No. 6024 of 2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is beyond controversy that the petitioner was a seasonal employee but for which there was a separate cadre. The impugned order acknowledges his engagement as a Seasonal employee against a vacant post in the seasonal cadre. Assailing the order it is submitted that merely because the petitioner may not have completed 240 days continuous engagement in a given year because of the work being seasonal in the nature could not be a ground to deny the appointment. Counsel for the State from the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit submits that the petitioner was a seasonal employee. That there may have been a cadre of seasonal employees but now the posts have been abolished. The petitioner on his own showing has not been engaged even in seasonal capacity since 1992. The list of employees in the seasonal cadre was prepared senioritywise. The petitioner was at serial 14 but could not be appointed in view of only four vacancies being available. A seasonal employee does not hold a post and is therefore not entitled to be considered for regularisation. Persons holding status of daily wage, contractual or casual who may form a better class than a 2 seasonal employee have also not been considered eligible for regularisation. Regularisation is not a mode of appointment. The petitioner quite obviously was aware of the precarious nature of his appointment limited in time and duration which he willingly accepted. If there was a seasonal cadre and the petitioner was appointed on a post in such a cadre no sooner that the post got abolished there existed no cadre any more. The respondents have been more than fair by drawing up a panel of seasonal employee from this cadre for regularisation. The petitioner has not disputed the contention of the respondents that the persons till serial 4 have been regularized and that he stood at serial 14. There is no allegation of any hostile discrimination by violation of merit in position in the panel. If the posts have been abolished and the respondents do not require any person this Court in the garb of regularisation cannot thrust the petitioner on any unwilling employer. The claim appears to have been rejected by the respondents on 30.12.2004. The ground therein also was non availability of vacancy. That CWJC No. 6024 of 2005 questioning it came to be disposed enmasse with a batch of cases when the individual facts and claims were not gone into, if there was no error in the order dated 30.12.2004 and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate so in the present proceeding also, there is no occasion for him to re-agitate the same matter in a different garb. The mere completion of 240 days in service may be a good ground for questioning the termination done in violation of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It certainly does not make out a case for regularisation. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 3