IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6575 of 2010 1. ABDUL RASHID, S/O ABDUL HAMID, R/O VILLAGE + P.O.-MEHSAUL GOTE, P.S + DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 2. SUNIL KISHORE PRASAD, S/O LATE SHYAMA KANT PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-MOHAMMADPUR, P.O - BHITKAHI, P.S - PATAHI,DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O. P.S- BAJPATTI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 3. SOHAN RAI, S/O LATE PARICCHAN RAI, R/O VILLAGE-BHISA MADHOPUR ROSHAN, P.S-DUMRA, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, NORTH BIHAR. 5. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI, BIHAR. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 06.01.2011 On their own showing, petitioners were appointed on contractual basis as Casual Labourers, vide Annexure-1 series. Apparently, there is nothing on record to show that in the appointment of the petitioners the selection process was adopted. It is not also the case of the petitioners that subsequently any advertisement was published against which they applied and they faced interview and selection process was adopted on the basis of which they were appointed on regular basis. 2 Therefore, clearly the appointment of the petitioners is illegal. In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (2) PLJR (SC) 363 the petitioners are not entitled to continue in service and the respondents are not duty bound to continue them. The writ application is accordingly devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)