Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the counsel for the parties. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in the letter being Memo No. 543 dated May 30, 2002 issued by respondent No. 3. Executive Engineer, Road Construction division, Deoghar, whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that his service is no more required by the department. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Road roller Driver in 1986 and continuously worked under the respondent. In 2001 the petitioner moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 1866 of 2001 for regularisation of his services and for payment of salary. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit was that since the petitioner was employed on daily wages and not against the sanctioned vacant post, he is not entitled for regularisation. The writ petition was disposed on March 5, 2002 with a direction to the Chief Engineer/executive Engineer pwd, Deoghar to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his services and take suitable decision in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid order the executive Engineer passed the impugned order whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated on the basis of a circular issued by state of Bihar being No. 5940 dated 18/06/1993 which inter alia provides that the employment of all daily wages employees engaged after 1/08/1985 shall be terminated. ( 3 ) MS. Ritu Kumar, learned G. P. IV vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for regularisation of his service on the ground inter alia that the petitioner is not entitled, as a matter of right, to regularisation because admittedly he was engaged after 1/08/1985. Learned counsel further submitted that now Road construction works are being done by the contractors, who have their own equipment and labourers and, therefore, the services of daily wages employees are no more required. Learned counsel further submitted that the only right which accrued to the petitioner is to consider his case as and when vacancy arises. ( 4 ) I do not find any force in the submission of the learned State counsel. Admittedly the petitioner was engaged on daily wages in 1986. In 1993 a circular was issued by the erstwhile government of Bihar directing that all daily wages employees engaged after 1/08/1985 should be removed. ( 4 ) I do not find any force in the submission of the learned State counsel. Admittedly the petitioner was engaged on daily wages in 1986. In 1993 a circular was issued by the erstwhile government of Bihar directing that all daily wages employees engaged after 1/08/1985 should be removed. The said circular was not given effect to in the case of the petitioner rather even after issuance of the circular the petitioner was allowed to continue in service as daily wages employee for 9 more years. In other words, the petitioner continuously and regularly worked from 1986 to 2002 i. e. for about 17 years. In 2002 the State Government, taking help of the circular which was issued in 1993, sought to remove the petitioner from service. The action of the respondents is, therefore, absolutely illegal, arbitrary, capricious and mala fide. The petitioner who was not removed from service pursuant to the circular of 1993, rather allowed to continue in service. for 9 years more and after serving altogether for 17 years, cannot be removed from service. ( 5 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of termination dated may 30, 2002 is, therefore, quashed. This court directs the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. --- *** --- .