SATYA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellants who had worked on daily wages for over ten years have approached this Court claiming benefit of paragraph 53 of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., 2006 4 SCC 1 Some doubts were there with regard to the meaning and content of paragraph 53 read with paragraphs 15, 16 and paragraph 8 read with paragraph 55 of the judgment in Umadevi's case (supra) which has been subsequently explained by this Court in several judgments. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh and Ors., 2007 2 SCC 491, State of Punjab v. Bahadur Singh and Ors., 2008 15 SCC 737, C. Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2009 3 SCC 179, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. G.V. Chandrashekar, 2009 4 SCC 342, etc. Almost identical situation arises for consideration in this case as well.

(3.) The appellants who had worked for more than 10 years on daily rated basis in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council has approached the Patna High Court for regularization of their services and a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court directed the Council to consider their request for regularization treating them as a separate class after relaxing their age. Since no positive direction was given to the Council for regularization of their services, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. The Division Bench held that merely because they had worked as daily waged employees with the Council would not confer any right for regularization as no public appointment was permissible de hors the recruitment rules. Letters Patent Appeal was, therefore, dismissed in limine. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred with a petition for special leave to appeal.