IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11604 of 2009 Maheshwari Prasad Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 3/ 12/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.11.2007 reverting him to the status of a daily wage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after initial appointment in 1980 on daily wage was brought into the work charge establishment in 1982. He was then absorbed in regular service on 7.2.1996 considering that he had worked for more than 10 years. Fresh formal orders for absorption on a vacant sanctioned post was made on 30.11.2006. The reversion to daily wage on 8.11.2007 after long years is therefore contrary to the law. The respondents in their counter affidavit state that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages. Despite a ban on appointments from 1.4.2001,he was brought into the regular establishment on 30.11.2006. Several illegal appointments of the present nature were made and then purported to be inducted into the regular establishment. In fairness to the petitioner the respondents also referred his case to the concerned Committee for absorption, but since he did not fulfil the eligibility it could not be done. 2 The order dated 30.11.2006 is peculiar in its nature. It states that the daily wagers named therein are absorbed on the newly sanctioned created posts in the pay-scale mentioned against their names till further orders. No further discussion is required that the order dated 7.2.1996 for regularization was a sham exercise without availability of posts. A daily wager holds no post and regularization is not a mode of appointment as held in (2010) 3 SCC 115 (State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak & Ors.) If in future an advertisement is published and the petitioner applies in response to the same, the Court expects the respondents to consider his candidature in accordance with law giving him age relaxation and preference for past work experience as a matter of policy keeping in mind his utility for the respondents themselves for the long years of service that he has put in. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the order impugned. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observation. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)