IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11302 of 2010 1. Kanhaiya Kumar Sinha S/O Shri Sarju Nandan Pd. R/O Vill.- Ladu Dema, P.S.- Mohanpur, Distt.- Gaya 2. Bali Ram Kumar S/O Late Parash Nath Ambastha R/O Mohalla- Sahmer Takiya, Ada Chand Chaura, P.S.- Rampur, Distt.- Gaya 3. Ranjoy Kumar S/O Shyam Narain Singh R/O Vill.- Ebrahimpur, P.S.- Bikram, Distt.- Patna 4. Dhananjay Kumar S/O Shri Tipan Singh R/O Vill.- Ebrahimpur, P.S.- Bikram, Distt.- Patna 5. Sanjoy Kumar Upadhya S/O Shri Vijoy Kumar Upadhya R/O Vill.- Gaura, P.S.- Buxar, Distt.- Buxar 6. Ram Suresh Sharma S/O Shri Prabhu Sharma R/O Vill.- Pie Bigha, P.S.- Bela Ganj, Distt.- Gaya 7. Mahendra Prasad S/O Late Sita Prasad R/O Vill.- Chamandih, P.S.- Chandauti, Distt.- Gaya 8. Devendra Kumar S/O Hari Nandan Prasad R/O Mohalla- Ram Sagar Talab, West Road, P.S.- Civil Lines, Distt.- Gaya Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Finance Department, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Gaya 3. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Gaya 4. The Deputy Collector, Nazarat, Gaya 5. The District Selection Committee, Gaya Through Its Chairman Cum District Magistrate, Gaya ---------------------------------- 2. 17.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. No counter affidavit has been filed despite the fact that the writ petition was filed on 15.7.2010 after serving two copies of the same in the office of the Advocate General. To the extent that the petitioners claim regular appointment from their status as a daily wager the Court finds no merit in this application. The law stands well settled in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi) that daily wager hold no post and question of their regularisation does not arise. The Court does not find any specific pleading in the writ application that the petitioners as of today are working as daily wagers and being paid. If they are not in employment on any post it becomes a case of fresh appointment. Regularisation can be done in accordance with law to only those who are in service. Any panel prepared in pursuance of advertisement of 1999 and that persons from the panel are being considered for appointment today also is a gross illegality which cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. If what the petitioners contend be correct there cannot be any justification in law whatsoever for the respondents to keep alive the panel prepared in 1999 to regularise a daily wager more so in light of the judgment of Uma Devi (Supra). If the respondents publish a fresh advertisement the petitioners are required tobe considered in accordance with law if they apply. Matters of age relaxation and weightage of past experience urged on behalf of the petitioners are more matter of policy to be decided by the respondents at the stage of fresh recruitment. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)