Judgment 1. The petitioner who was working as a clerk on daiiy wages in the Subdivisional Office, Road Construction Department, Patna City Sub-division seeks to challenge the order of her removal from service as contained in the office order dated 12.12.1997 (Annexure-17). This order was issued in pursuance of the direction given by the Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department in his letter dated 5.12.1997 (Annexure-16) which also comes under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. She passed matriculation examination and successfully completed courses in Shorthand and Typing (Hindi and English). 3. By office order, dated 13.5.1986 issued by the Executive Engineer, Ganga Bridge Project Subdivision No.4, she was engaged to work on daily wages and till further orders, as Steno Typist. It is significant to note that her engagement was made shortly before the issuance of the circular, dated 11.6.1986 imposing a bar on appointment on daily wages after 1.8.1985 and her engagement, therefore, seems to escape the bar. She was working in the Ganga Bridge Project when the Project was merged with the Road Construction Department and following the merger her services were transferred to the office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Patna City Division and she started working in that office. It is undeniable that from the date of her engagement she has been working continuously and uninterruptedly till her removal by the impugned orders. It is also evident from the records that when a vacancy arose in this office on the post o Correspondence Clerk her name was considered for regularisation against that vacancy. A representation filed by her for regularisation was forwarded by the office incharge to the superior authority. The Chief Engineer however expressed the view that the vacancy on the post of Correspondence Clerk could be filled up only on the basis of recommendation by the Circle Establishment Committee whereupon the Circle Establishment Committee considered the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on 25.6.1993 and decided that she should be appointed against the vacancy due to arise on superannuation of one Shri Janardan Prasad on 31.7.1993. The Superintendent (sic) Engineer, then sought necessary directions from the Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department. The Superintendent (sic) Engineer, then sought necessary directions from the Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department. The Chief Engineer, however, disregarded the recommendation of the Circle Establishment Committee and issued memo, dated 12.8.1993 transferring one Smt. Nilam Sinha against the vacancy arising from the retirement of Janardan Prasad. Thereupon the Superintending Engineer once again wrote to the Chief Engineer to cancel the transfer order of Smt. Nilam Sinha and to reconsider the matter of the petitioners regularisation against that post. The Chief Engineer, however, did not pass any order. 4. The petitioner then came to this court in C.W.J.C.No. 8565 of 1993 seeking a direction for her regularisation in service and challenging the transfer of Niiam Sinha to fill up the vacancy resulting from the retirement of Janardan Prasad. In that case it was represented before this court that the question of her regularisation was under consideration before the Chief Engineer, whereupon this court disposed of writ petition by passing the following order, dated 23.1.1995. "Heard the parties. In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit that the matter is pending before the Chief Engineer, South Bihar Wing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this application. This application is accordingly disposed of." The petitioner was then asked to appear before the Chief Engineer so that suitable orders concerning her may be passed but before any order could be passed by the Chief Engineer, the Joint Secretary issued the impugned letter directing for terminating the petitioners services, following which the impugned office order, dated 12.12.1997 was issued. 5 In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is said that the government received complaints against one Ram Shankar Prasad Singh, who at the material time was the Executive Engineer, Ganga Bridge Project, Division No. 4 "regarding kidnapping, making disproportionate assets and making irregular appointments". It is further stated that in view of the seriousness of the allegations, enquiries were made from which it transpired that the aforesaid Ram Shankar Prasad Singh had made irregular appointments of three persons, including the present petitioner. The matter was reported to the Chief Minister who directed that the appointments be terminated and payments made to the concerned persons be realised from Ram Shankar Prasad Singh. 6. The matter was reported to the Chief Minister who directed that the appointments be terminated and payments made to the concerned persons be realised from Ram Shankar Prasad Singh. 6. From what is stated above, it is apparent that though the initial appointment of the petitioner was quite irregular, she was appointed at the time when the bar against engagement on daily wages was yet to come. It is also undeniable that she worked continuously and uninterruptedly for a period of more than ten years. It is also evident from the record that during this period steps were taken for her regularisation in service so much so that the Circle Establishment Committee, on a consideration of her case, took the decision for her regularisation against the vacancy which at that time was to come into existence on the retirement of one Janardan Prasad working in the subdivision. 7. Ten years is a long period by any reckoning and this court finds it difficult to uphold the action of the government on the plea that the petitioners engagement was irregular and that the irregularity could be discovered after ten years. It is to be noted that there is no allegation that the engagement was fraudulent or that it was procured on the basis of fake or forged documents. It also cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner is a female and is a member of the Scheduled Tribe, the vacancies reserved for whom go a begging bagging for want of candidates in sufficient number. 8. I further find that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the order passed by the Supreme Court in Wali Ahmad V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., 1999 SCC (L&S) 734 where the Supreme Court interfered against the order of removal from service on the ground of long lapse of time. The case of the petitioner also finds support from the decisions of this court in Dhrub Prasad & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., 1995(2) PLJR 205 and in Dinanath Singh V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1998(2) PLJR 380. 9. The case of the petitioner also finds support from the decisions of this court in Dhrub Prasad & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., 1995(2) PLJR 205 and in Dinanath Singh V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1998(2) PLJR 380. 9. Following, therefore the order passed by the Supreme Court, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orers as contained in Annexures-16 and 17 are set aside with the direction that the matter regarding regularisation of the petitioner on any vacant post of clerk should be considered by the competent authority, keeping in view the petitioners performance for the period of ten years while she worked and if she is found suitable for such regularisation she may be regularised by granting necessary relaxation etc. Such consideration must be made within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is found fit for regularisation, she may be reinstated in service with continuity in service but she will not be entitled to back wages. 10. it is made clear that as the initial engagement was unquestionably irregular, any observations made in this judgment will not stand in the way of any action or proceeding that the State Government may wish to take against the aforesaid Ram Shankar Prasad Singh. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.