IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10215 of 2011 Suresh Baitha, son of late Faguni Baitha, resident of Kanpatti Harishan Tola, P S – Mehashi, Distirct – West Champran Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, PHED, Patna. 2. The Chief Engineer, PHED, Patna. 3. The Superintending Engineer, PHED, Bettiah. 4. The Executive Engineer, PHED, Bettiah. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, PHED, Narkatiaganj, West Champaran. ----------- 02. 9.9.2011 Petitioner is one of the retrenched employees who was working as a Nalkup Khalasi. Exercise was carried out by the respondent authorities of the PHED at Bettiah to regularize the services of the daily wagers. Some appointments were made but petitioner was not appointed/regularized because his name did not figure in the panel. This led to filing of a writ application by him which was CWJC No. 10627 of 2006. A copy of the order passed in the said writ has been annexed as Annexure-1. Based on the direction of the High Court the matter was reconsidered and name of this petitioner along with eight other persons were notified or included in the panel by virtue of Annexure-2 which is dated 7.2.2011. Petitioner is before the High Court again seeking a direction for his appointment on the ground that many a persons junior to the petitioner have already been regularized but his case has been ignored. When the earlier round of regularization happened, petitioner’s name did not figure in the panel, therefore, there 2 was no occasion to consider his case. His name has emerged in the panel only after the intervention of the High Court. Therefore, whatever right he acquires now will not relate to the transaction which has already been completed earlier but will relate to any future exercise in this regard. Admitted position is that after the notification of the name of the petitioner in the panel in terms of Annexure-2, no steps have been taken to regularize the retrenched employees by the respondents. If it is so, then the petitioner will have to await the next round of exercise when it is carried out by the respondents. It goes without saying that when such a step is taken, claim of the petitioner has to be considered on the basis of the position which has been indicated in the panel in terms of notification contained in Annexure-2. Writ application stands disposed of with observation as above. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)