IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5393 of 2010 1. Chaturvuj Singh S/O Tap Narain Singh R/O Vill.- Souths Akwana, P.S. Udwant Nagar, Distt.- Bhojpur At Present Working As Amin Under Executive Engineer Flood Control Division 2 At Ara, Bhojpur 2. Mahesh Yadav S/O Late Aklu Yadav R/O Vill.- Milki, P.S. Ara Distt.- Bhojpur At Present Working As Chaukidar Under Executive Engineer Flood Control Division 2 At Ara, Bhojpur 3. Gobardhan Prasad S/O Late Sidhnath Ram At Present Working As Choukidar, Under Executive Engineer Flood Control Division 2 At Ara Bhojpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Secretary Water Resources Department, Bihar Old Secretariat, Patna 2. Chief Engineer Water Resources Department Dihri, Rohtas 3. Superintending Engineer Sone Canal Anchal Ara, Bhojpur 4. Executive Engineer Flood Control Division No. 2 At Ara Bhojpur 2/ 30/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are stated to be daily wage appointees. They came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.6701 of 2004 claiming regularization. Their claim was referred to the three man committee which after consideration has rejected the claims on 20.8.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the long years since 1980-84for which they have been working have not been considered properly. That they were appointed against vacant sanctioned posts has also not come in for proper consideration. They are entitled to be considered for regularization in terms of 2 the judgment of the Supreme Court in (2010) 9 SCC 247 (Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari). Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application to submit that the impugned order itself states that they were appointed in absence of any sanctioned vacancy in the exigency of work only. The reference by this Court to the three man committee came to be made in the light of the observations contained in (2006) 4 SCC-1 (SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA Versus UMA DEVI). Paragraph-43 of that judgment puts daily wagers in a class apart along contractual and casual workers not holding any post, as not entitled to be considered for regularization. They did not fall within the ambit of the directions contained in paragraph-53 to be considered for regularization as a one time measure on completion of 10 years of service. Notwithstanding the same, directions given by courts for consideration of daily wagers for regularization in terms of paragraph-53 of the judgment, compelled the Supreme Court in (2010) 4 SCC 179 (Satya Prakash Mishra vs. State of Bihar) to clarify that the directions to consider for regularization daily wagers in light of the judgment of Umadevi (supra) was not in accordance with the spirit of the judgment. To avail the benefit under the 3 judgment of M.L. Kesari (supra) it was for the petitioner to establish the foundational fact before this Court by placing supportive documents of having been appointed against a vacant sanctioned post. Once the impugned order holds that they were daily wagers not appointed against any sanctioned vacancy, it is not possible for this Court to hold otherwise on a mere pleading of the petitioners not supported by any evidence to the contrary. The submission that the decision was not by a three man committee, but by a one man committee does not impress the Court. Any defect in the constitution of the committee, which was not statutory in nature, shall not invalidate the order. To uphold the submission of the petitioner on that ground shall necessarily result in the revival of a direction for regularization contrary to the law. The Court is not inclined to give such interpretation. There is no merit in this application. The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)