IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11184 of 2008 Madan Prasad, Son of Sri Laichi Mahto, Resident of Village Suraha, Police Station Muffasil, District East Champaran at Motihari…..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. 6. The Principal, Mangal Siminary Inter College, Motihari, East Champaran…………………….Respondents ---------------------------------- 3 29.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Watchman of Cycle Shed of Mangal Siminary Inter College in 1983. He claims that he is still continuing but is getting fixed salary of Rs.750/- per month only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not considered the case of petitioner for regularisation as per the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006 (2) PLJR 363 (SC) and as explained by the Apex Court in 2 the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 247 which has held that one time exercise has to be done in respect of all the persons who are continuing with any authority covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India for more than ten years as on the date of judgment of the Constitution Bench of Apex Court i.e. on 10.04.2006 Since petitioner has claimed that he was appointed in 1983 as Watchman and has continued as such, his case is also required to be considered by the respondents for regularisation or otherwise in view of the direction of the Constitution Bench contained in paragraph 44 within the parameters laid down therein. In the circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, as one time measure, for his regularisation or otherwise in terms of the direction made in paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench. It is made clear that after judgment of the 3 Constitution Bench, no person is to be continued on daily wages, on ad hoc basis or alike for long period and, if his case is not found fit for regularization within the parameters laid down in paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench, his service has to be terminated. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)