JUDGMENT Heard the parties. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application is to direct the authorities to regularize their services on the respective posts on which they have been working as casual employees since last 22 years in the Department of Rural Engineering Organization. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 were appointed/engaged on the vacant post of Khalasi as casual employees on 1.11.1981 and since then they have been regularly working and continuing on the said posts, whereas petitioner no.2 was engaged on 16.2.1981 on the vacant post of Roller Khalasi in the similar manner and he is also continuing as such. Further case of the petitioners is that Government of Bihar through a notification dated 18th June 1993 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, took a policy decision to regularize the services of those casual employees who were engaged prior to 1.8.1985 and completed 240 days of work continuously without any break. According to the petitioners as per the above said resolution, the petitioners became entitled to be regularized as they were engaged prior to 1.8.1985 and also completed 240 days continuous work in the year 1993 itself. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they filed their representation before the authorities praying for their regularization in service, but they have not yet been regularized, inspite of the fact that they have rendered their continuous service for more than 22 years as casual employees. There is no dispute of the facts that these petitioners were appointed without following the rules, regulations and procedure for public employment i.e. without advertisement and without interview. The claim of the petitioners is only on the basis of long continuance in service. I am afraid that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Versus Uma Devi and others, reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases, page 1, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has held that “ Persons who get employed, without the following of a regular procedure or even through the backdoor or on daily wages, have been approaching the Courts, seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned. The Courts have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and have occasionally even stayed the regular process of employment being set in motion and in some cases even directed that these illegal, irregular or improper entrants be absorbed into service. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, the Courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. Such an argument fails when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules”. In this view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. However, if regular employment is made in future and the petitioners apply for the same, then they would be entitled to be considered certainly and they should be given weightage of their past experience and relaxation of age bar.