IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13715 of 2009 1. UMA SHANKAR PASWAN S/O LATE RAGHUNI PASWAN VILL- RASHIDPUR, P.S. & DISTT. SHEOHAR 2. RAJDEO PASWAN S/O LATE MAJAN PASWAN VILL- RASHIDPUR, P.S. & DISTT. SHEOHAR 3. LAL BABU RAI S/O SRI RAMASHISH RAI VILL, P.S. & DISTT. SHEOHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY REVENUE AND LAND REFORM DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR SHEOHAR 4. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER SHEOHAR, DISTT. SHEOHAR 5. INCHARGE DEPUTY COLLECTOR DISTRICT-NAZARAT, SHEOHAR, DISTT. SHEOHAR ----------- 2. 29.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioners seek directions for regularization of their services on sanctioned vacant post of driver in the Sheohar District on which they claimed to be working on daily wages till today. The petitioners came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13412/2000 along with C.W.J.C. No. 9431/1998 aggrieved by non-regularization despite their name figuring in a panel prepared on 5.11.2000 for the purpose. This Court noticed that the petitioners did not have an indefeasible right but only a legitimate expectation considering their working for long years as daily wagers. Directions were therefore given to fill up the vacant posts by names from the panel in accordance with law. The matter was carried in appeal by the State 2 when on 5.12.2005 the Letters appellate Court while dismissing the appeals held that it cannot be construed as a direction to fill up the vacancies as that would remain the discretion of the authorities but such appointment must be made from the panel of 5.11.2000. M.J.C. No. 2551 of 2005 was filed thereafter for non-compliance when noticing that the process of appointment has already started, the contempt application was dismissed on 3.7.2006. Learned counsel for the State points out that there are no allegations that any person below the petitioner in the panel have been appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very strenuously contended that the aforesaid orders of this Court are orders inter-partes and therefore they are required to be complied with. The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held that daily wagers hold no posts and the question of their regularization by treating them at par with those appointed irregularly on sanctioned vacant post was not permissible in law. Regularization of daily wagers cannot be a mode of appointment. The Supreme Court in 2009(2) SCC 706 (Girdhar Kumar Dadhich and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) has further held that no panel can have a life beyond and year 3 as that itself would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No relief can be granted from a panel dated 5.11.2000 in the year 2009. In so far as the submission of a judgment in enter- partes is concerned, there have been substantial developments in service jurisprudence by judicial pronouncements after the orders on the earlier writ petition dated 17.5.2004 and 5.12.2005. In the case of Uma Devi (3) (supra) it has been held at Paragraph 54 as follows:- “It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.” Judicial discipline requires this Court to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Once the earlier orders relied upon by the petitioners have been set at naught by the Supreme Court in the paragraph noted above, there is no occasion of this Court to consider the submission of an order enter-partes order to direct grant of any relief to the petitioners. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)