IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.102 of 2008 KISHORE KUMAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 09/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The claim in this writ application is for regularization based on long years of working. The writ application itself acknowledges that he is not working since 19.8.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that his name figures in a panel of “Ummeedbar Chaprasi”. The nomenclature of the appointment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is self explanatory of the nature of appointment. This Court does not consider it necessary to deal with that aspect any further except to notice his submission that his name was also for regularization in 1999 and has wrongly been deleted from the panel in 2004. Article-14 of the Constitution mandates that no panel can have a life beyond one year. Whether it be a panel of 1999 or 2004 is irrelevant as no appointment can be made on the basis of such panels by the State authorities. Since the petitioner has himself admitted 2 that he is not working, question of considering him for regularization does not arise as it is not a mode of appointment. The writ application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)