IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.108 of 2009 RAM PRAVESH RAM . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 4. 23.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The claim is one for regularization by a daily wager. A daily wager does not hold a post and therefore has no claim for regularization. This stands more than adequately explained in 2006 (4) SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Versus Uma Devi). The observation contained therein with regard to regularization after 10 years of service applies only to those working on permanent post and not to daily wage simplicitor stands duly explained in (2010)4 SCC 179 (Satya Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). The Committee which considered the case of the petitioner notices that he was unable to produce any appointment letter or to demonstrate that he was appointed against a vacant sanctioned post. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages against the sanctioned vacant post. The Court finds it difficult to examine the impugned order of the Committee on a ground not urged before the Committee. On the contrary 2 the order states that the petitioner did not place any material before the Committee that he was appointed on daily wage against a sanctioned vacant post. It is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner in light of the observations of the Supreme Court in (2010)9 SCC 247. What the petitioner may propose to do hereinafter is for him to decide and not for the Court to advise. The application stands dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Nothing in this order shall preclude the respondents from reconsidering matters if the petitioner places material before them that his appointment on daily wages was against a vacant sanctioned post and that he had completed more than 10 years on that post in that capacity. But any fresh orders passed thereafter shall not create a fresh cause of action in the petitioner to approach this Court again as that would be giving him a latitude to take advantage of his own lapse in not placing complete materials before the Committee and for which reason the respondents cannot be vexed by litigation time and again. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.) 3