IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.845 of 2009 Arun Kumar Pandey & Ors . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . with CWJC No.964 of 2009 Baidyanath Tiwary & Ors . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . with CWJC No.1363 of 2009 Aziz Mian & Ors . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2/ 28/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. A person appointed on seasonal basis accepts the employment fully conscious of the precarious and limited nature of the engagement. There is no right in him to demand absorption or regularization as they are not modes of appointment. Any appointment on a government post has to be strictly in accordance with the mandate of Article- 14 of the Constitution of India by open advertisement and merit selection. Any procedure which seeks to deviate from the same and any administrative circular issued in pursuance thereof contravening Article-14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to seek a Mandamus from a Court of Law. Regularization not being a mode of appointment, the question of considering a person who is no more in service, when questions of fresh appointment will arise, simply does not arise. 2 The petitioners came to this Court also in C.W.J.C. No.4682/97 seeking regularization. The Court observed that the grievance was premature and declined to interfere with directions to expedite the process of regularization on 28.1.1999. The respondents by an order dated 20.4.2001, as service jurisprudence stood at that time, considered the claims but declined regularization in absence of vacancy. The petitioners questioned that order afresh before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.607/04 which came to be disposed with a batch of analogous writ applications on 30.11.2006 directing consideration by a Committee in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) gave directions to consider for regularization those who had completed ten years in service against a permanent post and in whose appointment processes required were followed, but there were certain irregularities only. Daily- wagers/seasonal employees were specifically excluded from the parameters laid down in the case of Umadevi (supra} as forming a class by themselves having no claim for regularization. Since several Courts in the country were nonetheless giving directions to consider for regularization such persons also, the Supreme Court was required to clarify its own 3 judgment of Uma Devi (supra) in (2010) 4 SCC 179 (Satya Prakash & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.) that the benefit of regularization shall not be available to persons like the present petitioners. In any event of the matter, if this Court gave any directions to consider the petitioners for regularization at any earlier point of time, and that was done with a finding that there were no vacancy, no orders to regularize can be passed. The case of the petitioners cannot be considered as no directions for appointment or to consider for appointment beyond sanctioned vacancies arises. So long as the order dated 20.4.2001 holds the field, any order passed afresh by the Committee on 27.5.2008 in pursuance of any order of this Court which did not interfere or upset the order dated 20.4.2001 is only superfluous and does not create any right in the petitioners where none existed earlier. The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)