Ramji Marandi v. The State Of Bihar

considered at great length by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav & Anr Vrs. State of Bihar, 2013 (1) PLJR page 964, wherein the Full Bench, after discussing all the law including the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) page 1, have held as follows: 5 “ 43. We therefore sum up our conclusions and answer the reference as follows: (A) Uma Devi (supra) prohibits regularization of daily wage, casual, ad-hoc and temporary appointments, the period of service being irrelevant; (B) An illegal appointment void ab- initio made contrary to the mandate of Article 14 without open competitive selection cannot be regularized under any circumstances; (C) Irregular appointments can be regularized if the appointment was made by an authority competent to do so, it was made on a vacant sanctioned post, in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution with equal opportunity for participation to others eligible by competitive selection and the candidate possessed the eligibility qualifications for a regular appoint to the post. (D) The appointment must not have been an individual favour doled out to the appointee alone and the person must have continued in service for over ten years without intervention of any court orders.” That apart, whatever has been held by one 6 Man Committee has also been specifically considered by way of individual consideration in the Full Bench judgment of Ram Sevak Yadav (Supra) wherein it was held that: “The petitioners were appointed in the temporary capacity by a process contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution without competitive selection as an individual favour doled out to them. There is no material to hold that they were appointed against vacant sanctioned post and possessed qualifications for the same. They were terminated before (Uma Devi) (Supra) and have sought to retain their status by virtue of court proceedings and are therefore not entitled to the benefits of paragraph 53. The issue of any procedural irregularity for a finding of forged appointment is therefore irrelevant.” In view of the above, this Court will find no error either in refusal or regularization of service to the petitioners or the order passed by the one Man Committee. That would lead this Court to examine only one more submission of Mrs. Chatterjee. She has stated that these petitioners have been working uninterruptedly since 1991-92 and, therefore, they should be at least allowed to work on daily wages. This Court would make it clear that refusal of regularization of service would not come in the way of the respondents in taking 7 work from the petitioner on daily wages if there is a need for them but then on account of such continuation the petitioners cannot claim any right either for regularization of service or for any other benefit. The only benefit that, ultimately, the petitioners may become entitled in future if the posts are advertised for regular appointment, would be that they may seek condonation of age if by that time they would become over age for regular appointment in government service. Subject to the afore mentioned observation, this application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. A.Ahmad/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)