IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.518 of 2006 BINAYAK PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, Junior Counsel to Standing Counsel-V ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 27th August, 2008. The counsel for the appellant places reliance upon an order of this Court passed on 23rd May, 1991 in the case of Mohamad Habib Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar & anr. (C.W.J.C. No. 7642 of 1990). He submits that the case of the petitioner is quite similar to that of Mohamad Habib Ansari. 2. The only order that has been given by this Court in the case of Mohamad Habib Ansari is to consider his representation for regularization of his service. 3. In so far as the present case is concerned, it has been found by the Single Judge that the petitioner was engaged as a dailywager for one month. On the basis of such working, the Single Judge held that no question of regularization arises. This is how the - 2 - Single Judge proceeded with the matter: - “At the best in the event the State notifies vacancy to the post of Class IV employee in the Department of Bhu-Abhilekh and Pariman Nideshalaya, the petitioner may be permitted to offer himself as a candidate for such post. The petitioner is not entitled to any other relief, as prayed for. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed on daily wages basis for one month against a permanent vacancy. It does not appear from the records produced whether in the matter of giving such appointment, there was a sanction of the State to accord such appointment and that any effort had been made to find out the most suitable person who was available to perform that job. On the strength of such appointment it appears that the petitioner was permitted to work for some other period also. On the strength of such working, the petitioner seeks regularization of his services in regular government establishment. It must be kept in mind that illegal appointee earns no equity, even by serving the State, to be considered for appointment. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.” 4. We find ourselves in agreement with the view of the Single Judge. 5. L.P.A. has not merit. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-