IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14080 of 2005 HABIBURREHMAN @ MD.HABIBUREHMA son of FAsiburehman, resident of Mohalla- Pakari, P S. Nawadah Ara, District- Bhojpur… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary Ministry of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chancellor Bihar, Patna. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Veer Kuer Singh University, Ara Bhojpur. 4. The Registrar, Veer Kuer Singh University Ara Bhojpur. 5. The Principal, Maharaja College Ara, Bhojpur. … Respondents. ----------- 5. 30.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for Veer Kuer Singh University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows: “1(i) For direction to respondents to pay the wages for the work done by the petitioner since the period from Oct 96 to till today, as the petitioner is a daily waiges employee Maharaja College Ara Under Veer Kuer Singh University. (ii) For direction to respondent to pay the arrears of wages salary.” With regard to the aforementioned prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appointment of the petitioner was made on daily wages by the Principal of Maharaja College, Ara on 27th January 1986 and therefore if the work from the petitioner has been taken, he would be entitled for 2 payment of salary. He would also place reliance on an order of the Chancellor Secretariat contained in Letter NO. 845 dated 9.4.2005 though not by bringing on record of this case but by producing a photo copy thereof in course of his making submissions. In the opinion of this Court, when the appointment of the petitioner is itself rank illegal, inasmuch as the Principal of the college had no power to make appointment on Class IV posts and the petitioner’s appointment was made even without following the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India without any advertisement followed by selection, he cannot claim the payment of salary as a matter of right. Moreover, the documents enclosed with the supplementary affidavit would go to show that the Principal had made some oral order for utilizing the services of the petitioner. It was not personal fiefdom of the Principal to utilize the service of any person on his own sweet will and make the Government and/or University liable for making payment of salary. The reliance placed on the Chancellor Secretariat instruction dated 9.4.2005 and seeking equivalence of the case of 3 the petitioner with one Gurudayal Prasad can not be examined by this Court in absence of Gurudayal Prasad being made a party to this writ application or bringing this fact on record of this case. As noted above, this plea has not been taken in the writ petition and therefore if the petitioner is so confident that he would be entitled for payment of salary on this ground alone, he may better approach the Vice Chancellor of the University which may reconsider his earlier decision in the light of precedent of Gurudayal’s Case and thereafter take a decision strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)