IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.668 of 2005 ============================================= Md.Naushad , s/o- Late Jumman Khan, r/o- Mohalla Millat Colony, III Sector, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, 15 Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Officer-on-Special Duty, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Bailey Road, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anwar karim For the State : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, A.C. to AAG-XIV. For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi Mr. Vijay Shanker Upadhyay. ============================================= 18 21-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Bihar Public Service Commission and the State. Petitioner has filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus upon the respondents, particularly, the officials of the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short “ the B.P.S.C.”) to appoint the petitioner on ad-hoc basis on any Class-III post. It is the case of the petitioner that he possesses Intermediate degree and was initially retained in the year 1991 on daily wage basis by the Commission and continued in the said 2 capacity till 1993. It is admitted position that thereafter he has not been engaged and/or offered any job either on casual and/or Daily Wage basis. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent thereto, in the year 2000 and 2004, advertisement for appointment on the post of Mali and Routine Clerk was/were made followed by appointment but he was not appointed whereas other persons namely Dharamdeo Singh and Manan Thakur were appointed. It is thus the stand of the petitioner that persons junior to him have been appointed whereas petitioner has been denied the appointment for which he made representation yielding no result. Petitioner is, thus, persuaded to approach this Court seeking the aforesaid direction. Two sets of counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent Commission. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has stated that one Deepak Kumar moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7607 of 2003 which was disposed of on 10.2.2004 and thereafter in the light of said order, aforesaid Deepak Kumar has been appointed. Learned counsel for the respondent, with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner is raising a stale claim. From his own showing, it appears that 3 petitioner has worked on Daily Wage basis up to 1993 whereafter he was disengaged. It is contended that pleadings on record are wholly inadequate to show that the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of aforesaid Deepak Kumar. It is contended that in order to anchor his claim on Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is duty bound to demonstrate by adequate pleadings and materials to show that the petitioner in all similarities belong to the same class/category. It is next contended, with reference to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Official Liquidator versus Dayanand and Ors since reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 that after the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, no relief in the shape of direction to regularize and/or to appoint a Daily Wager can be issued based on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. There is no document on record even to show that the petitioner was engaged on Daily Wage basis from 1991 to 1993. Even though the same is accepted, it would appear that the petitioner is now raising a stale claim. On going through the pleadings made in the writ petition 4 and the supplementary counter affidavit, this Court is unable to find that the case of the petitioner is on the same footing as that of Deepak Kumar and others cited in the writ petition. Moreover, in view of the ratio laid down in Uma Devi (3) (supra) and Official Liquidator (supra), this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Commission to appoint the petitioner on the post claimed by him. The application is dismissed. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)