IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11383 of 2010 1. Shyam Sundar Paswan S/O Late Nathuni Paswan R/O Vill Helajot Charghara, P.O.+P.S.Jhajha, Distt-Jamui Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Forest Department Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chief Conservator Of Forest , Forest Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Regional Chief Conservator Of Forest Bhagalpur Region , Distt-Bhagalpur 5. The Conservator Of Forest , Foreset Division Bhagalpur,Distt-Bhagalpur 6. The District Forest Officer Jamui,Distt-Jamui 7. The Forest Range Officer , Forest Range Jhajha, Distt- Jamui ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11435 of 2010 1. Pramod Kumar S/O Sri Chandra Shekhar Das R/O Vill.- Navtolia (Bindwara), P.S.- Kasim Bazar, P.O.+Distt.- Munger 2. Kamdeo Jha S/O Late Kauri Jha R/O Vill.+P.O.- Maura, P.S.- Gidhaur, Distt.- Jamui Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Forest Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Forst Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Regional Chief Conservator Of Forest, Bhagalpur Region, Distt.- Bhagalpur 5. The Conservator Of Forest, Forest Division Bhagalpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur 6. The District Forest Officer, Jamui, Distt.- Jamui 7. The Forest Range Officer, Forest Range, Jhajha, Distt.- Jamui ---------------------------------- 2. 18.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. A supplementary affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 17.11.2011 which is not on the record. The office shall place it on record. 2 The original claim of the petitioners was one for regularisation on Class IV post in the Forest Department contendng that they have been working on daily wage since 1989. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relying upon the departmental instruction dated 14.12.2009 submits that the respondents have clearly opined that persons like the petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularisation in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. The Court finds it difficult to sustain the submission. On the contrary in Uma Devi (Supra) the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms at para 43 has held that daily wagers hold no post. The question of their regularisation does not arise. The direction given in para 53 to consider as one time measure for regularisation was related to those appointed against a regular vacant sanctioned post only in irregular manner stands explained in (2010) 3 SCC 115 and (2010) 4 SCC 179. To that extent the Court finds it difficult to grant any relief to the petitioners. The next submission is that on 30.8.2010 the respondents have proposed to make contract appointment and have directed to draw up a seniority list of daily wagers in which the petitioners also find place. Nothing in the present order shall preclude the petitioners as an applicant, to be considered for such appointment on contract in accordance with law if they otherwise fulfill the terms and conditions stipulated by the respondents. Any circular of the State Government directing consideration of daily wagers for regularisation inter alia on the ground of completion of 240 days of continuous service, can also now be of no avail as it has been held in (2009) 5 SCC 193 that such circulars are incapable for 3 enforcement through the Court orders being essentially in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India after the judgment in Uma Devi (Supra). The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)