Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner came to be appointed on daily wages in the office of the Government Polytechnic, Saharsa. He was regularized in the year, 1987 which regularization came to be cancelled in the year, 1987 itself. A writ application being CWJC No. 3956 of 1993 was preferred by the petitioner challenging the cancellation order. On 2.5.1995 the writ application was allowed holding that the order was bad as no opportunity of hearing was given. Opportunity was, however, granted "to the competent authority to take steps afresh against the petitioner". Thereafter, followed a show cause notice dated 4.10.1999 which was followed by the order of termination dated 29.12.1999. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice was not addressed to the petitioner. In fact, it was not a show cause notice for termination of service. It did not state of any illegality in his appointment so as to require him to show cause why his service be not terminated. 4. The impugned order sets forth six grounds of illegality in his appointment. The petitioner has been denied any opportunity to represent against the same. 5. This court finds from the pleadings of the petitioner himself in paragraph 5 of the application that he ambled into the Government Polytechnic Office upon having learnt of vacancies that if he wanted to work he could be engaged. 6. In view of the aforesaid pleadings of the petitioner, this court cannot help note of the observations of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union V/s. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Others, AIR 1992 SC 789 at paragraph 15 that such employments are granted for considerations which may at times include monetary consideration a fact of which judicial notice can be taken. It is, therefore, apparent from the case of the petitioner himself that he never came into government service through the front door by an open advertisement followed by open selection. It stands equally well settled that a daily wager has no right to claim regularization, muchless, a legal right to demand continuance in service, even as a daily wager, muchless, as a permanent employee. 7. It stands equally well settled that a daily wager has no right to claim regularization, muchless, a legal right to demand continuance in service, even as a daily wager, muchless, as a permanent employee. 7. This court is afraid that the observations of this court in CWJC No. 3956 of 1993 are of no avail to the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Umadevi(3) & Ors., 2006 4 SCC 1 . This court considers it proper to quote para 54 of the judgment, which reads as follows: "It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their sta-tus as precedents." 8. The impugned order of termination itself recites that the petitioner appeared. He was heard. He was clearly given an opportunity to present his case and cannot be said to have been taken unaware or by surprise. Even if that be considered as a ground, in view of the admitted facts of the case in the writ application also, no pleadings have been advanced by the petitioner to counter the grounds urged in the order of termination so as to persuade this court to accept his submissions of alleged violation of the principle of natural justice and to remit the matter. 9. The findings in the impugned order are that there has been no advertisement, no names have been called for from the Employment Exchange, no interviews were held and no appointment letter has been issued and lastly no Selection Committee had been constituted. 10. The Court finds no merit in this application. It is dismissed.