JUDGEMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA JJ. 1. Heard Sri Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the University as well as learned counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. The appellant preferred writ petition bearing CWJC No.200 of 2000 claiming that initially he was appointed on a Class-IV post on daily wages w.e.f. 7.5.1980 but subsequently he was regularized by the order of University dated 29.4.1982 contained in Annexure-1 and his salary used to be deposited in the bank account but after June 1992 his salary was withheld for reasons not known to him. 3. The claim of the appellant that he was regularly appointed and entitled for regular salary which was withheld since June 1992 was contested by the respondents who raised dispute of facts particularly in respect of order for regular appointment which was claimed by the writ petitioner/appellant on the basis of Annexure-1 dated 29.4.1982. In order to resolve the disputed facts, the writ Court directed for deciding the relevant facts relating to service career of the writ petitioner by a high level committee whose report dated 28.10.2005 has been annexed to this appeal as Annexure-12. 4. A perusal of the Committees report shows that it looked into all the relevant papers and came to a conclusion that the petitioner worked in M.V. College, Buxar on a Class-IV post only as a daily wage employee till June 1992 and he was paid daily wages for such working till June 1992. It was also found that since July 1992 he was absent and has not worked even as a daily wager and hence he was not entitled for any wages or salary as claimed by him in the writ petition. 5. The writ Court, in view of the aforesaid facts and after considering the arguments of the parties, found itself unable to grant any relief to the petitioner/appellant. The writ Court further found that not only the petitioner worked only as a daily wager for the period in question but that any appointment made by the College or the University is subject to approval of the State Government under the Act and there was no material to show that his appointment or engagement was approved by the State Government ever or that his engagement was in accordance with the staffing pattern approved by the State Government. 6. 6. The order under appeal records that the claim of the petitioner appears to be much in dispute and therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief in the application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We are unable to take a different view in the matter and find no good reason to interfere with the order of the writ Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 7. If the petitioner is advised to approach the civil courts for raising any dispute of facts, the same will be decided on its merit in accordance with law. 8. There shall be no order as to costs.