Judgment Per AMARESHW AR SAHA Y, J. This L.P.A. is directed against the order dated August 22, 2006 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2021/2003, by the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants wherein, they challenged the letter no. 420 dated March 22, 2003 issued by the Managing Director, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited terminating the services of 39 persons including the petitioners on the ground that they were illegally appointed. 2. The case of the appellants is that they were working on daily wage basis under the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited after being appointed as such after following the due procedures. Their services were taken over by the newly created Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited and therefore, the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited, who had issued the impugned letter No. 420 dated March 22, 2003 terminating the services of the appellants had no jurisdiction to do so. Only the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation had the authority and jurisdiction to take any action against the appellants, if any, since their services were taken over by the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation after its creation. 3. The learned single Judge, after considering the statements made in the counter affidavit by Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation, wherein it was stated that no formal cadre bifurcation was made nor the services of the petitioners/ appellants were taken over by the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited, held that there is nothing on the record to suggest that the services of the petitioners/ appellant were taken over/absorbed under the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited and therefore, it cannot be accepted that the petitioners/appellants were the employees of the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited and in such a situation, the Managing Director of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation had the jurisdiction to terminate the services of the writ petitioners and the others if their appointments were found to be illegal. On consideration of facts and material on record, the learned single Judge also held that there is nothing on the record that any advertisement was published in the News Paper for appointment against the post against which the petitioners/appellants were appointed. It was also held that the petitioners/appellants and others were working on daily wages. On consideration of facts and material on record, the learned single Judge also held that there is nothing on the record that any advertisement was published in the News Paper for appointment against the post against which the petitioners/appellants were appointed. It was also held that the petitioners/appellants and others were working on daily wages. Interview, if any, as claimed by the petitioner was taken from amongst the daily wage employees, without giving opportunity to any outsiders and without issuing any interview letter to any individuals including the petitioners/appellants. Even no Selection Committee was constituted in accordance with the guidelines of the State and straightaway, the appointments were made from amongst the daily wage employees. Even no scheme was framed by the o Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited or by the Jharkhand Stage Forest Development Corporation Limited to absorb the daily wage employees and in absence of such scheme for absorption, as no advertisement was issued in the News Paper, the appointment of the petitioners/appellants were illegal in view of the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi AIR 2006 SC 1806 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 : (2006) 2 MLJ 326: 2006-II-LLJ-722 and in the case of Jayant Kumar Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand and Others passed in W.P.(S) No. 7051/2005 of this Court. 4. The Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra), has held that the absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees appointed/recruited de hors the constitutional scheme of public appointment to be illegal and has also been held that no direction amounting to creating another mode of public employment is permissible. In the said decision, it has also been held by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court that in the name of individualizing justice, it was not possible for the Supreme Court to shut its eyes. Constitutional Scheme and rights of numerous is against the few who are before the Court. The directive principles of State Policy have also to be reconciled with the right available to the citizen under Part-III of the Constitution and the obligation of the State to one and all and not to a particular group of citizen. 5. Constitutional Scheme and rights of numerous is against the few who are before the Court. The directive principles of State Policy have also to be reconciled with the right available to the citizen under Part-III of the Constitution and the obligation of the State to one and all and not to a particular group of citizen. 5. Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1 : 2009-III-LLJ-305 (SC), by following the decision of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) has held that menace of illegal and back door appointments compelled the Courts to rethink and in a large number of subsequent judgments, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the claim of ad hoc and temporary employees for regularization of services and even reversed the orders passed by the High Courts and Administrative Tribunals. The shift in the Supreme Court's approach became more prominent in Uma Rani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies AIR 2004 SC 4504 : (2004) 7 SCC 112 : 2004-III-LLJ-780 decided by the three Judges Bench wherein, it was held that the State cannot invoke Article 162 of the Constitution for regularization of appointments made in violation of the mandatory and statutory provisions. Finally, in paragraph 54, the Constitution Bench in the Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) clarified that earlier decisions which run in counter to the principles settled by it, will stand denuded of ) their status as precedence. 6. In the present appeal, the appellants have not come forward with a case that any scheme was framed by the Government or by Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited or by Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited for regularization/ absorption of the employees who were appointed and continuing in services of daily wage. The appellants have also failed to show, as has been found by the learned single Judge also, that the petitioners were illegally appointed without following the due process for such appointment. It has also been held that the appellants failed to show that their services were absorbed or taken over by the newly created Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation. No order or document of any kind was brought on record in order to establish the aforesaid fact. 7. It has also been held that the appellants failed to show that their services were absorbed or taken over by the newly created Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation. No order or document of any kind was brought on record in order to establish the aforesaid fact. 7. In such a situation, in my view, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the Managing Director of Bihar State Forest Development corporation was competent to issue the impugned letter no. 420 dated March 22, 2003 for termination of the services of the appellant and similarly situated others on the ground that their appointments were illegal. The issuance of impugned letter of termination, is fully in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned two decisions, i. e. Secretary, State of Kamataka v. Uma Devi (supra) and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (supra). 8. In view of the discussions and findings above, I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.