Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to allow him to work on daily wage. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner was allowed to work on the post of typist on daily wages, but he is not being absorbed in regular cadre. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein, inter alia, that the strength of typist under drainage circle was reduced, and, therefore, there was no need to take further work from the petitioner and others. 5. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was permanently appointed/absorbed on the post under the drainage circle. 6. Persons on daily wages are engaged in exigency of work and according to the case of the respondents, since cadre strength has been reduced, there was no need to engage the persons on daily wages. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and owing to the nature of the prayer of the petitioner, in my opinion, this writ application does not merit consideration. 8. In the result, this writ application is dismissed.