IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2410 of 2010 SRI BHAGWAN RAM . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . ----------- 3. 20.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In pursuance of the direction in the writ petition, the respondents have passed a fresh order dated 15.3.2011 at Annexure-A to the show cause that the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite number of years to be considered for regularization. The Court does not consider it necessary to go into that aspect of the matter. The admitted fact emerging from the order on the writ petition is that the petitioner was a daily wager. The three man committee had arrived at the finding that he was fulfilling the requisite 10 years period to be considered but that he had not been appointed on a unsanctioned post. The Court does not consider it necessary to notice the conflict between the three man committee report and Annexure-A to the show cause. Even if the Court were to place reliance on the three man committee report noticed in the order of the writ Court, the petitioner being a daily wager not having been appointed against sanctioned post, in view of the law laid down in (2010 )9 SCC 247 2 (State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari), the petitioner could not have been considered for regularization in any event of the matter. Further consideration of the issue and interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court are matters which can more appropriately be considered in an enquiry in the writ jurisdiction only. The contempt application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)