IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6368 of 2010 1. Ashok Paswan S/O Doman Paswan R/O Vill Bhuidhara, P.S.Muffassil, Distt-Samastipur At Present Address - Adranagar, P.S. Muffasil, Distt-Samastipur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Director Of Prosecution Prosecution Directorate To Government Of Bihar 3. Assistant Director Prosecution Directorate Government Of Bihar 4. Deputy Secretary Home And Police Govt. Of Bihar 5. District Magistrate Samastipur 6. District Prosecution Officer Samastipur 7. Sub-Divisional Officer Samastipur 4/ 15/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The claim in this writ application is one for regularization. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a peon-cum-sweeper on 18.11.1996, but has not been made permanent till today. Vacancies are available on which the petitioner can be considered. It is highly unfair for the respondents to utilize his services since 1996 without confirmation. Learned counsel for the State from the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with law, but only as a part time sweeper and himself acknowledges that he is being paid for the days that he has worked. 2 Any appointment on a government post can be strictly in accordance with law, after an advertisement and competitive merit selection. It is not the case of the petitioner in his pleadings that he was appointed against a vacant sanctioned post. There is no denial of the fact that he was in fact appointed as a part time sweeper. That he may have completed 240 days or more or over 10 years in service, no relief can flow to him in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi) since the petitioner clearly falls within the category of persons clarified at paragraph-43 and 55 who are not covered by paragraph-53 containing directions for regularization as a one time measure after ten years of service as further explained in (2010) 3 SCC 115 (State of Karnataka Vrs. Ganpathi Ganpathi Chaya Nayak) and (2010)4 SCC 179 (Satya Prakash Mishra & State of Bihar). But, if what the petitioner claims is correct, his long continuance may itself be indicative of the need for regular personnel. If that be so, the respondents cannot adopt the subterfuge of appointing part time sweepers against regular need for a post. A regular appointment entails several benefits under the law which may not be available to a part time employee. The State has a constitutional obligation to perform under 3 Chapter-IV of the Directive Principles of State Policy by acting as a model employer setting standards for others to emulate. Equally part timer or daily wagers cannot be replaced by another part timer or daily wager. If the respondents have the need for a sweeper, directions are issued to make a regular appointment within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order when if the petitioner applies he is expected to be considered appropriately including policy matters with regard to age relaxation and weightage for past work experience etc. The writ application is dismissed with directions. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)