IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11461 of 2010 1. Rameshwar Prasad Yadav S/O Late Ram Swaroop Yadav R/O Vill.- Hariyan Chapra, P.O. Motihari, P.S. Motihari Muffasil, Distt.- East Champaran 2. Ram Naresh Thakur @ Ram Nares Thakur S/O Ramadhar Thakur R/O Vill.- Barmaswa, P.O. & P.S. Harsidhi, Distt.- East Champaran 3. Baban Prasad S/O Late Sheo Mangal Prasad R/O Vill.- Madhurapur, P.O. Bakarpur, P.S. Pipra, Distt.- East Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary Through Administrative And Personnel Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 4. The District Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran 5. District Nazarat Department Through The Collectoriate, Motihari, East Champaran 6. The Additional Collector, District Establishment Committee, Motihari, East Champaran ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr.Sunil Kumar III, Advocate For the State: Mr. Shambhu Nath, AC to A.A.G. 3 -------------------- 4. 12.12.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are stated to be daily wage earners in the Motihari Collectorate claiming such status from 1987/1988. They seek regularisation inter alia on the ground that they have completed 240 days of service before 11.12.1990 under a government circular dated 12.9.2006. It has additionally been submitted that they have not been considered appropriately under advertisements published in 1995, 2000 and 2002. Persons junior to them in the panel of daily wagers prepared for regularisation have been so considered causing hostile discrimination. Reliance has also been placed on an order of this Court in CWJC No. 5961 of 2010 which in turn relies upon an order of this Court in CWJC No. 8048 of 1997. Counsel for the State from para 14 of the counter affidavit submits that the petitioners had crossed the age limit for inclusion in 2 the panel as far back as 30.6.2001 and therefore rejected. The petitioner no. 1 represented for relaxation of age of the petitioners and certain others but the proposal was turned down by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division. Dealing with the same the petitioners in para 11 of their rejoinder do not deny the statements. What may or may not have been directed in CWJC No. 8048 of 1997 for preparation of a panel of daily wagers for regularisation shall no more hold the field in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 more particularly para 54 of the same. The law now stands well settled in Uma Devi (3) at para 43 that daily wagers hold no post and the question of their regularisation simply does not arise. That they do not fall within the one time exercise permissible under para 53 of the judgment has also been specifically explained in (2010) 3 SCC 115 (State of Karnataka & ors vs. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak & ors.) and (2010) 4 SCC 179 (Satya Prakash & ors v. State of Bihar & ors.). Completion of 240 days of service may be a good ground under the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court for appropriate relief but does not lay any foundation for regularisation in service. There can be no exclusive preparation of panel of daily wagers for regularisation. All appointments on vacant sanctioned posts have strictly to be by open advertisement and competitive merit selection when a daily wager may also apply. The fact that the respondents may decide to give preference to them in otherwise a competitive field, is an entirely a different matter. 3 There is no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state that if the petitioners apply in response to any fresh advertisement they are naturally required to be considered in accordance with law. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)