IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.883 of 2009 7 9.11.2009 1. Nand Lal Pd., S/o Late Kameshwar Pd., resident of village Dhibar Gularia Tola, Police Station Pandarak, Distt. Patna 2. Chhatri Rai, son of late Dorik Rai, resident of village Mohanpur, P.S. Kbodawantpur, Distt. Begusrai 3. Uday Chand Lal Das, son of Bhunseshwar Lal Das, resident of village- Ladaho, P.S. Birol, Distt. Darbhanga ....... Petitioners/ Appellants VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Samastipur 4. The Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Samastipur 5. The Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Hasanpur, Samastipur 6. The Secretary, Personnel Administrative and Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 7. The Deputy Sectary, Personnel Administrative and Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna ------ Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. The Writ Court has passed the order under appeal dismissing the writ petition on the ground that if the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India was not followed at the time of initial appointment as was the case with the petitioners, who were taken in as daily 2 wager in violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, other factors could not help the petitioners in claiming regularization of their service under the State. On behalf of the appellants several arguments were raised. But in respect of the main hurdle on account of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, no satisfactory reply was advanced except a legal submission that it is not a requirement for valid appointment as flowing from the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka V. Uma Devi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. We have difficulty in accepting the aforesaid contention in respect of ratio of the Supreme Court judgment noticed above. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the Writ Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma,J.) sk