IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13826 of 2009 1. SIKANDAR YADAV S/O- PRAMOD YADAV VILL- BARAIL, PS- SUPAUL, DISTT- SUPAUL 2. NIRANJAN KUMAR SINGH S/O- RAM BALABH SINGH VILL- DAWAGARI, P.S SOUR BAZAR, DISTT- SAHARSA 3. MUSHAARU SAH S/O- BAJRANGI SAH VILL- DAWAGARI, P.S- SOUR BAZAR, DISTT- SAHARSA 4. MD. KASHIM S/O- KUDARAT VILL- DAWAGARI, P.S SOUR BAZAR, DISTT- SAHARSA 5. BRAJ KISHORE SINGH S/O- JALDHAR PRASAD SINGH VILL- DAMAGARI, P.S- SOUR BAZAR, DISTT- SAHARSA 6. SACHIDA NAND YADAV S/O- JOGOLAL YADAV VILL- KHERA , P.S- SOUR BAZAR, DISTT- SAHARSA 7. JAI PRAKASH SINGH S/O- JAMUN PRASAD SINGH VILL- DAMAGARI, P.S- SOUR BAZAR, DISTT- SAHARSA 8. VISHUNDEO PANDIT S/O- RAMADHIN PANDIT VILL- DAMAGARI, P.S- SOUR BAZAR, DISTT- SAHARSA 9. MUSLIM NADA S/O- SALAMAT NADAR VILL- HADO , P.S - SOUR BAZAR, DISTT- SAHARSA 10. JALESHWAR SARDAR S/O- CHHEDI SARDAR VILL- DAPARKHA , P.S TRIVENIGANJ, DISTT- SUPAUL 11. NARAYAN SARDAR S/O- HABI SARDAR VILL-DAPARKHA , P.S TRIVENIGANJ, DISTT- SUPAUL 12. CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD S/O- TRIVENI PRASAD SINGH VILL- BARAIL, P.S - SUPAUL, DISTT- SUPAUL 13. GORELAL MANDAL S/O- SUNDAR MANDAL VILL- DAPARKHA , P.S TRIVENIGANJ, DISTT- SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY KARMIK AND PRASHASHNIK SUDHAR BIBHAG GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. SRI AMIT SUBHANI , SECRETARY - CUM - CHAIRMAN ,THREE MAN COMMITTEE, KARMIK AND PRASHASHNIK SUDHAR BIBHAG, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CHAIRMAN CUM JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BIHAR , PATNA 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SUPAUL DISTT- SUPAUL 5. CHIEF ENGINEER , WATE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT PURNEA , DISTT- PURNEA ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Gandhi, Adv. For the State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, G.P. 14 Archana Sinha, J.C. to G.P. 14 2/ 03/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners, who were seasonal workers, claim to have worked till 1998. They came to this Court with a claim for regularization in C.W.J.C. No.12131/05. This Court heard the writ petition along with a batch of a large number of analogous applications as 2 apparent from Annexure-2. The individual facts of a case were not gone into and a general order was passed referring the matter to a three men committee for examination in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMA DEVI-3 reported in (2006) 4 S.C.C. page-1. The Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioners noticing that they had worked intermittently for certain days and all of which expired prior to the year-2005 when the writ petitions were filed. In the case of Uma Devi (supra) the Court has cautioned that those engaged for intermittent periods or on daily wages form a class by themselves and mere engagement in the exigency of work cannot vest a claim for regularization. They cannot equate themselves with those appointed on sanctioned vacant posts though in an irregular manner as distinct from an illegal appointment. Judicial pronouncements have repeatedly held that completion of 240 days of work does not make out a claim for regularization as reported in (2006)2 S.C.C. 702 ((M.P. HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER Versus MANOJ SHRIVASTAVA). On the own showing of the petitioners, they were seasonal employees. This is in contradistinction to a regular employee. The impugned order of the committee itself 3 notices that they have worked for short periods commensurate with their status as a seasonal employee. The employment itself being precarious, the question of regularization does not arise. Regularization is not a mode of appointment. It presupposes that the person seeking regularization is still in service. On the own showing of the petitioners even if their seasonal employment, if, stood at an end in 1998 at last though in case of some of the petitioners it has ceased as early as in 1978. If they were not in employment on the day that they came seeking regularization, any generalized order of this Court without considering the facts of an individual case shall not vest a claim in them based on the strength of judicial pronouncements when the foundational facts are themselves lacking. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)