Judgment Satyeshwar Roy, J. Both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. In M. J. C. No. 162 of 1990 (R) prayer has been made that as the opposite parties have not obeyed the order of this Court passed on 9.3.1990 in C.W.J.C. No. 2035 of 1989 (R), they should be punished. The opposite parties filed number of show cause and thereafter number of times filed supplementary show cause. It was admitted that there was delay in taking appropriate steps for complying the order of this Court, but ultimately steps have been taken' and process for recruitment has commenced. 3. In C.W.J.C. No. 46 of 1992 (R) the Petitioners most of whom are also the petitioners in M. J. C. have prayed for quashing Annexures 6, 6/ A and 6/B, office orders issued by the marketing Board (respondent no. 1) whereby a total number of 43 persons have been appointed by respondent no. 1 at works Division, Ranchi, These 43 persons were working on daily wages under different market Committees/different Engineering Cell of the Board, and having been appointed have been posted at Works Division, Ranchi. Prayer has also been made for a direction on the respondents to fill up all sanctioned post numbering about 1118 by selecting such candidates who are already working under different Market Committee and/or works Division since long. Further prayer has been made to give a direction to the respondents to pay equal wages for equal works i.e. wages to the petitioners, daily rated employees at the rate at which the same is being paid to regular employees of the respondents. 4. Large number of persons were employed by the different Market Committees or Engineering Cells or the Board on daily wages. Some or them are working as such for a number of years. A number of writ petitions were filed by such daily rated employees both at Patna and Ranchi. One such case at Ranchi Bench filed by these petitioners was C. W. J. C. No. 2035 of 1989 (R). They prayed that they may be absorbed permanently in the service" of the Board. In that case it was observed that since the petitioners were working for a long time, there was no reason why the benefits of regular employees be not given to them. They prayed that they may be absorbed permanently in the service" of the Board. In that case it was observed that since the petitioners were working for a long time, there was no reason why the benefits of regular employees be not given to them. Direction was given to the respondents to take proper steps for filling up the posts the petitioners were holding after due advertisement. Further direction was given that the petitioners and other similarly situated persons may apply for such post and if such applications were made, the respondents would consider- the past services of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. In C.W.J.C. No. 4194 of 1989, a Bench at Patna observed that while making appointment of Class III and Class IV posts of the Board and/or the Market Committee the cases of the petitioners of that writ petition who were retrenched employees would also be considered in accordance with law along with others. 5. Posts were advertised and at least 43 persons as stated by the petitioners have been appointed. According to the petitioners, since they were working at Ranchi, they should have appointed against the vacant posts at Ranchi and not 43 persons who were working elsewhere. 6 It will thus appear from the orders passed in both the writ petitions that no direction was given to the Board/Market Committee to absorb permanently the daily rated workers, hut direction was given to advertise the posts and fill up the same in accordance with law by considering the cases of the petitioners as also other similarly situated persons. 7. In C. W. J. C. No. 1100 of 1991 again this Court declined to give any direction to the Board/Market Committee to permanently absorb the daily rated workers merely because they were already working. 8. It is thus clear that in none of these cases any direction was given to absorb daily rated workers permanently; and no such direction could be given as that will be in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution as none of them was appointed by following any procedure known to law by which candidates are selected for filling up public posts. It is thus clear that in none of the writ petitions including C.W.J.C. No. 2035 of 1989 (R) direction was given to the respondents to absorb the daily rated workers against permanent vacancies of the Board/Market Committee. 9. It is thus clear that in none of the writ petitions including C.W.J.C. No. 2035 of 1989 (R) direction was given to the respondents to absorb the daily rated workers against permanent vacancies of the Board/Market Committee. 9. The respondents advertised the posts and the petitioners applied in pursuance of the same. The petitioners have made a grievance that so far petitioners no. 6, 7 and 9 were concerned, their applications were rejected because they had not passed Class VII. According to them, since they were already working, their cases could not have been rejected on the ground that they had not passed Class VII. 10. I have already noticed that the petitioners have admitted that the posts in the Engineering Cell of Works Division at Ranchi were advertised, a copy of which is Annexure 4. In this advertisement (Annexure 4) it was stated that three posts of Correspondence Clerk, three posts of Jeep Driver and 37 posts of Class III would be filled up. It was specifically mentioned in Annexure 4 that for Class IV employees, the minimum academic qualification would be that the candidate must have passed Class VII. The petitioners no. 6, 7 and 9 who had not passed Class VII also applied and the Board rejected their application on the ground that they do not have minimum requisite academic qualification. 11. It was submitted On behalf of the petitioners that since the petitioners no. 6, 7 and 9 were working since long, for the purpose of considering their case for appointing permanently against the vacant post, their candidature could not have been rejected on the ground that they did not possess minimum academic qualification. Reliance was placed in Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 (1) SCC 361 . From the perusal of the orders passed by this Court from time to time in the different writ petitions filed by the daily rated employees against the Board it appeared that although direction was given that the past services of the petitioners shall be considered, but no direction was given that minimum academic qualification shall also be relaxed. As Annexure 4 was issued pursuant to the order of this Court, Bhagwati Prasad (Supra) cannot be applied. I, therefore, find no infirmity in rejection of the candidature of petitioners no. 6, 7 and 9 on the ground that they had not the minimum academic qualification. 12. As Annexure 4 was issued pursuant to the order of this Court, Bhagwati Prasad (Supra) cannot be applied. I, therefore, find no infirmity in rejection of the candidature of petitioners no. 6, 7 and 9 on the ground that they had not the minimum academic qualification. 12. Petitioners No. 14 and 15 had applied against the vacancies of Jeep Driver but their Cases were also rejected because they have no driving licence for light vehicle like Jeep. Those two petitioners had licence for driving Road Rollers. So far rejection of the application of petitioners no. 14 and 15 is concerned, if the respondents were of the opinion that since they had no licence for driving light vehicle like Jeep, but heavy vehicle like road roller, in our opinion, no exception can be taken for the same. 11. The main thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners was that since they were working since long in the Engineering Cell of Ranchi Works Division, their cases only should have been considered for filling up the posts at Ranchi. In Annexure 4, the advertisement, it was not stated that the cases of only such persons who were daily rated at Works Division, Ranchi will be considered. Inspite of this fact, the petitioners applied. In other words, they took a chance of being selected. They have not been selected and they cannot now be allowed to say that the post cannot be filled up from out of the persons who were not already working in Works Division at Ranchi. Further in none of the cases noticed above, this Court gave direction that the posts shall be filled up from out of such daily rated employees who were working in Works Division, Ranchi. I have already noticed that large number of persons were working under different Market Committees/Engineering Cell throughout Bihar on daily wages. In pursuance of the different orders passed by this Court, all such daily rated employees were entitled to apply. The petitioners also applied and their cases were considered along with others. We do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondent. No. case has been made out for interfering with the process by which 43 candidates have been selected for filling up different posts in the Engineering Cell of the Works Division at Ranchl. 14. The petitioners also applied and their cases were considered along with others. We do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondent. No. case has been made out for interfering with the process by which 43 candidates have been selected for filling up different posts in the Engineering Cell of the Works Division at Ranchl. 14. The petitioners relied on some decisions of the Supreme Court and submitted that as the petitioners have worked for long years, they shall have to be absorbed in regular employment by the respondents. All those decisions have been noticed by the Supreme Court in Dhanwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association Vs. State of Karnataka, 1990 (2) SCC 396 : and the petitioners relied on this decision also. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that all persons employed on casual basis must be paid at least the minimum in the pay scale of the regularly employed persons even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all benefits enjoyed by regularly employed persons. It further directed to prepare scheme to absorb as many casual employees as may be possible on regular basis. In none of the decisions cited at the Bar, the Supreme Court directed for absorbing all daily rated or casual employees. Prayer of the petitioners that all daily rated casual employees must be absorbed cannot be allowed. 15. The petitioners also relied on Anjani Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, 1989 Patna L.J.R. 130. The facts of that case were that persons who were working for more than ten years on daily wage and having requisite qualification gave representation to the State Government to regularise their services. The State Government adopted policy decision to regularise service of such employees. Pursuant thereto, Establishment Committee recommended names and some were appointed. Thereafter their services were terminated on the ground that appointments made were irregular. Learned Single Judge on such facts held that State Government was bound to implement its own decision to regularise casual employees. Although he recorded this finding by observing that it was settled law. He, however, has not cited any decision in support of this. Learned single Judge has noticed Daily Rated Casual Labour etc. Vs Union of India: AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2342 and Dhirendra Chamoli Vs. State of U.P : 1986 (1) SCC 637 . Although he recorded this finding by observing that it was settled law. He, however, has not cited any decision in support of this. Learned single Judge has noticed Daily Rated Casual Labour etc. Vs Union of India: AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2342 and Dhirendra Chamoli Vs. State of U.P : 1986 (1) SCC 637 . (The names of parties of AIR 1987 S.C. 2342 have been wrongly printed in the judgment of Anjani Kumar Sinha). In Daily Rated Casual Labour etc. (Supra) direction was given to pay wages to casual workmen at the rate equivalent to the minimum pay of regularly employed workmen. Further direction was given to prepare a scheme for absorbing as far as possible casual workmen. In Dhirendra Chamoli (Supra) direction was given for paying equal pay for equal work to the casual employees but no order to absorb casual employees was given as there was no sanctioned post. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in neither of the aforesaid two decisions had any application to the facts of Anjani Kumar Sinha (Supra). It appears that the learned Single Judge has used the word "regularisation" as meaning "absorption". 16. With regard to the prayer of the petitioners for direction to the respondents to fill up all vacant sanctioned posts, I am of the opi'lion that it is for the respondents to decide whether the posts should be filled up of not. However, it is made clear that the respondents cannot be allowed to engage employees on dairy rate or casual basis if the work they are discharging is of permanent nature. Such posts shall have to be filed up on permanent basis in accordance with law. 17. So far claim of the petitioners about equal pay for equal work, it is now settled that even persons employed on daily or casual basis must be paid at the minimum on the same scale as is paid to regular employees. If the petitioners have been paid less, they surely are entitled to the balance wages. The respondents are directed to look into this matter and if payment has not been made in the same minimum scale as is paid to regular employees, payment shall be made within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 18. With the aforesaid directions, C.W.J.C. No. 46 of 1992 (R) is disposed of. The respondents are directed to look into this matter and if payment has not been made in the same minimum scale as is paid to regular employees, payment shall be made within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 18. With the aforesaid directions, C.W.J.C. No. 46 of 1992 (R) is disposed of. So far M.J. C. No. 162 of 1990 (R) is concerned, the respondents have t3ken steps for filling up the posts, of course beyond the time fixed by Court. In view of this, no further action need be taken in that case. The rule is discharged and M.J.C. No. 162 of 1990 (R) is disposed of. I agree Applications disposed of.