JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents for his regularization/absorption on a Class-III or Class-IV post in the establishment of the respondents in the light of the State Government resolution dated 16.3.2010 and in terms of his long service with them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vacancies are still available in both Class-Ill and Class-IV post and the representation of the petitioner has already been filed for the purpose. 4. From the facts, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages as a clerk on 14.11.1986 and he worked as such till 5.2.1993 only. Thereafter, admittedly, he has neither been re-engaged nor been re-apppinted. Petitioner moved this Court earlier through CWJC No. 4896 of 1996 which was disposed of by order dated 1.2.1999, as contained in Annexure-5, with a direction to the respondents to pay his arrears of wages, it appears that the same was not paid and, therefore, petitioner also filed contempt application in the Court, namely MJC No. 2692 of 2004 which was disposed of by order dated 2.3.2006, as contained in Annexure-6, as the same was paid in the meanwhile. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to move the concerned authority for any calculation mistake which may have been made in release of his arrears of wages. 5. Appointment in regular service of the Government has to be made in consonance with the principles of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The continuance of employees on daily wages/ad hoc basis for long periods and right being accrued on that basis, has been considered by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi (3) [2006(2) PLJR (SC)363]. The Constitution Bench has deprecated continuance of employees on daily wages and ad hoc basis for long period and has directed all concerned to stop this practice. It has also given liberty to the concerned employers to consider the cases of such daily wages/ad hoc employees for regularization who were continuing in service for more than 10 years, as one time measure, if their appointments were found only irregular and not illegal. It has also given liberty to the concerned employers to consider the cases of such daily wages/ad hoc employees for regularization who were continuing in service for more than 10 years, as one time measure, if their appointments were found only irregular and not illegal. That consideration had to be made by the concerned employers, if the employees were continuing in service in any capacity as on the date of the Constitution Bench judgment. Admittedly, petitioner was put out of service more than 10 years earlier. As appearing from his representation itself, he remained in service only six years, two months and 21 days which ended on 5.2.1993. On the basis of that period of his working, petitioner cannot claim for his regularization/absorption. This has to be necessarily considered now only in terms of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench and not otherwise. So far as his representation for his appointment is concerned, he cannot be appointed on regular basis without following the procedure, as required under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, none of the claims of the petitioner is fit to be allowed by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Government circular dated 16.3.2006, as contained in Annexure-7, and Government circular dated 10.5.2005, as contained in Annexure-11, which lays down certain circumstances under which the cases of daily wages employees have to be considered for regularization. He submits that, in terms of these letters of the Government, the case of the petitioner is fit to be considered for his regularization. 7. The law having been laid down by the Constitution Bench in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, no judgment of any court or no Government circular or letter, running counter to the same can be held valid and can be given any effect. 8. In the circumstances, this Court does not find it appropriate for this Court to issue any mandamus to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in terms of the said letters of the Government. However, if on its own, Government takes up the exercise pursuant to its cisions as emanating from those letters, they will not be precluded from considera- tion of the case of the petitioner, if simi- larly situated persons are being consid- ered. 9. The writ application is accordingly disposed of.