Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 6th December 96, whereby and whereunder, his claim for regularisation of his service against the post of Choukidar has been rejected by the Respondent, Rural Engineering Organisation (R.E.O. for short), Bhojpur at Arrah. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged on daily wage basis in pursuance of advertisement in the office of Superintending Engineer, R.E.O., Bhojpur to perform the duty of Choukidar. He continued to function and his name was recommended on 27th December 90 for regularisation of his service. The Chief Engineer, R.E.O., Patna vide letter dated 3rd July 92 asked to produce the list of daily wage employees which was forwarded on 1st August 92. Therein, the name of petitioner was reflected but no order of regularisation was made. On the other hand, the service of the petitioner was terminated on 1st December 94 from the retrospective date, while juniors like Bhanu Pratap Singh and Jagdish Prasad were retained and regularised in the services. 3. At that stage, the petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1270/95, challenged the order of removal and for his regularisation in the services under the State. The writ petition was disposed of on 30th April 96, directing the Respondents to consider and decide the grievance of the petitioner in view of the fact that the persons stated to be junior to the petitioner were retained and regularised in the service. On the basis of the aforesaid decision, when the petitioner preferred representation, his claim has been rejected by the impugned order dated 6th December 96. 4. According to the petitioner, he is eligible for appointment against Class- IV post and entitled for regularisation of his service, persons junior to the petitioner having regularised. Reliance was placed on Circular No.3955 dated 3rd April 90 issued by the State from its Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, in support of claim for regularisation, he having worked for more than 240 days. The counsel also placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 1995(2) P.L.J.R.735. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was in the services of the State and worked on daily wage basis from 1st Sept. 87 till 1st December 94. The prayer for regularisation, as made amounts to appointment on regular basis in the services of the State. The counsel also placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 1995(2) P.L.J.R.735. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was in the services of the State and worked on daily wage basis from 1st Sept. 87 till 1st December 94. The prayer for regularisation, as made amounts to appointment on regular basis in the services of the State. The appointment under the services of the State can be made only on the basis of rule/guideline, if any, issued for such appointment. The source of recruitment/mode of recruitment is required to be laid down by the appointing authority. In absence of rule/guideline laying down the source of recruitment/mode of recruitment, the only mode can be made applicable is appointment by direct recruitment in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The other procedure/mode can be made applicable for appointment out of a particular source, if laid down under rule/guideline. In any case, the appointment cannot be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. The appointment out of a class of person (daily wage employees in the present case), by way of regularisation can be made only if there exists any rule/guideline/scheme framed by the competent authority. In absence of such rule/guideline/scheme, no such direction can be given for regularisation of services of daily wage employees. From the circular placed by the parties and issued, from time to time, by the State of Bihar, it will be evident that the initial guideline for appointment against Class-IV post was issued from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Dept., vide Circular No.13984 dated 17th August 71, followed by Circular No.16441 dated 3rd December 80. The only mode of appointment/source of appointment was laid down by way of direct recruitment from amongst outsiders. 7. The question relating to giving preference to daily wage employees in the matter of appointment under the State fell for consideration before the State of Bihar after order and direction of Supreme Court dated 16th December 87, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1509/87. Therein, the Supreme Court directed the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna to prepare reasonable scheme for regularisation of services of casual labourers, who had been working for more than one year. Therein, the Supreme Court directed the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna to prepare reasonable scheme for regularisation of services of casual labourers, who had been working for more than one year. Taking into consideration the aforesaid general direction for preparation of reasonable scheme for regularisation as issued by the Supreme Court, the State of Bihar, for the first time, came out with Circular/letter no.3955 dated 10th April 90 from Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. While it was ordered to follow the reservation policy, it was directed to give preference over outsiders in the matter of appointment to daily wage employees worked for more than and continuous 240 days, if otherwise equal. Thereby, mere preference was ordered to be given to the daily wage employees over outsiders, but no scheme for taking them in service straightway by regularisation was framed. 8. The aforesaid circular dated 10th April 90 was followed by a resolution issued by the State on 18th June 93. By the said resolution, similar stipulation was made to give weightage to daily wage employees, after preparing their panel, over outsiders in the matter of appointment. The Circular No.16441 dated 3rd December 80 was modified subsequently by Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, vide Circular/letter no. 3577 dated 25th April 97, wherein, in the matter of direct recruitment, merely preference has been given to the daily wage employees, over outsiders, on the basis of their length of service (seniority). 9. Thereby, in absence of any rule/guideline/scheme for regularisation of the services of daily wage employees, no direction can be given to appoint them straightway in the services of the State on regular basis. However, they are entitled to get weightage/preference over the outsiders, on the basis of their length of service/seniority. 10. In the present case, the petitioners grievance was that the persons junior to him were retained and regularised in service. Reference was given of two daily wage employees, namely, Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh and Jagdish Prasad. In the impugned order dated 6th December 96 issued by the Superintending Engineer, R.E.O., Work Circle, Bhojpur at Arrah, it is stated that Shri Jagdish Prasad was working on daily wage basis, has not been appointed nor he is working. Reference was given of two daily wage employees, namely, Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh and Jagdish Prasad. In the impugned order dated 6th December 96 issued by the Superintending Engineer, R.E.O., Work Circle, Bhojpur at Arrah, it is stated that Shri Jagdish Prasad was working on daily wage basis, has not been appointed nor he is working. So far as Bhanu Pratap Singh is concerned, it is stated that he has been appointed on the recommendation of the District Magistrate, vide Memo No.787 dated 29th December 92, in pursuance of Courts order passed in C.W.J.C. No.6188/91. It has not been disputed by the Respondents that said Bhanu Pratap Singh, a daily wage employee was junior to petitioner having appointed later. Thus, I find that the person junior to petitioner as daily wage employee was appointed on regular basis on 29th December 92, while petitioner was in service and his case was not considered along with Bhanu Pratap Singh. On the other hand, petitioner was retrenched from the services of the State and was not allowed even to work on daily wage. 11. In the circumstances, the Superintending Engineer should not have rejected the claim of the petitioner for consideration of his case for appointment against Class-lV post. At least, the case of the petitioner should have been considered for appointment along with others, in accordance with law. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I set aside the order dated 6th December 96 and remit the matter to the Superintending Engineer, R.E.O., Work Circle, Bhojpur at Arrah for consideration of the case of petitioner for regular appointment against Class-lV post. 13. The Superintending Engineer, in his turn, is required to place the matter before the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah, along with the name of similarly situated persons for empanelment and consideration for appointment against Class-lV post. 14. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah will consider the case of the petitioner along with others for appointment against Class-lV post, in accordance with law, giving preference/ weightage over outsiders. If the petitioner has become overage, in the meantime, orders may be passed for relaxation of his age. His case is required to be considered against Class-IV post lying vacant in different Muffasil Offices of the State, in the district. 15. If the petitioner has become overage, in the meantime, orders may be passed for relaxation of his age. His case is required to be considered against Class-IV post lying vacant in different Muffasil Offices of the State, in the district. 15. Appropriate order, on such consideration, be issued and communicated to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 16. The petitioner will produce a copy of this order before the Superintending Engineer, Work Circle, R.E.O., Bhojpur at Arrah and the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah to ensure compliance. 17. The writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.