Order The petitioner has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction upon the respondents authority to reinstate the services of the petitioner as Daily Wages Worker. 2. In substance, the petitioner has been working as a Daily Wages Worker in the respondent-Department, Govt. Polytechnic, Dhanbad, and his services has been terminated pursuant to the direction of the Government (Annexure-3 to the writ application). The petitioner has made several representations before the respondent authority but his grievances have not been redressed by the authorities concerned and therefore, this writ petition has been preferred. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is settled proposition of law that a Daily Wages Worker has no legal right to remain in the service. In the case reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 [: 2006(2) JLJR (SC)282] (The Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi and Ors.), in which, it has been observed that a Daily Wages Worker has no legal right to continue in service as his/her appointment has been made against the spirit of the Constitution and it violates the constitutional mandates provided under Articles 14 and 16 to the Constitution of India. It has also been held in the said case that a Daily Wages Worker has no right to claim to continue in service if the employer did not want to continue the daily wager in his service; there is no need to give any notice to the Daily Wager. It has also been observed that the Courts cannot issue mandamus to direct the respondent authority to continue such daily wager after his services have been dispensed with. 5. It is alleged in this petition that the petitioner was appointed as a Daily Wager and his services were dispensed with pursuant to the order of the Government (Annexure-3 to the writ application). It is apparent from the record that he was never regularized or confirmed on the said post and therefore, he has no legal right to continue in the said post and as such, the petitioner has no right to make the claim before the Court to seek his continuation in his service. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed in limine. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.