Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application of an appropriate Writ, order or direction for setting aside the order passed by the Committee constituted by the State Government contrary to the direction of this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4153/2003 and L.P.A. No. 694/2006 by which the committee has held that as petitioners were not working on sanction and vacant post hence they do not fulfill the direction and criteria set by Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Uma Devi (3) case and thus there was no vacant post for regularization/appointment of the petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned orders contained in Annexure-1 Series has submitted that the Three Men Committee has arbitrarily rejected the case of all the petitioners without considering their cases for regularization in an objective manner. In this regard, reliance has also been placed on an order of this Court dated 19.10.2012 in CWJC No. 3982 of 2011 wherein under similar circumstances, direction has been issued to re-consider the cases of the petitioners of those cases for their regularization in service in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. reported in 2010(9)SCC 247. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the issue of regularization of service and the impact of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.L. Kesari has already been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2013(1) PLJR 964 wherein it has been held that no regularization of service is permissible in respect of a daily wages employee and that too initially engaged against unsanctioned post. 5. The facts giving rise to this writ application lie in a very narrow compass. Admittedly, all the petitioners were engaged on daily wages at different point of time and their services were ultimately terminated in the month of May, 2003. 5. The facts giving rise to this writ application lie in a very narrow compass. Admittedly, all the petitioners were engaged on daily wages at different point of time and their services were ultimately terminated in the month of May, 2003. The petitioners thereafter had moved this Court through their association, namely, Laghu Sinchai Karamchari Sangh, Zila Sakha, Bhagalpur in CWJC No. 4153 of 2003 and the writ application was allowed by quashing their order of termination on 17.8.2007 and a direction was issued that the case of the petitioners will be considered for their regularization in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. reported in 2006(4)SCC 1 as also the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.3.2007 in LPA No. 634 of 2006 (State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Dayanand Sinha & Ors.) and its analogous cases. It is in compliance of the aforesaid direction of this Court that the impugned orders as contained in Annexure-1 Series dated 17.10.2008 have been passed wherein it has been held that since all the petitioners were not appointed on daily wages against any sanctioned post, they would not be entitled for the regularization of services in view of the law laiddown by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 6. As noted above, the impugned orders came to be passed on 17.10.2008 and this writ application was filed on 11.4.2013 i.e. after almost four and half years and the main plank for filing such writ application has been the order of the learned single judge dated 19.10.2012, wherein, a direction was issued to reconsider the case for regularization in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.L. Kesari (supra). This Court, however, would find that the delay of four and half years in moving this court by itself would be fatal, inasmuch as, no explanation whatsoever has been given by the petitioners who this time have sought to file their writ application individually instead of moving this Court through their association. 7. Delay apart, there is no challenge to the findings recorded in the impugned order that the engagement of the petitioners were made against unsanctioned post. 7. Delay apart, there is no challenge to the findings recorded in the impugned order that the engagement of the petitioners were made against unsanctioned post. In fact, not a word has been said in the writ application that the petitioners’ engagement was made on sanctioned post. Therefore, this Court will proceed that the petitioners have admitted their initial engagement on daily wages against unsanctioned post. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi in paragraph no.53 had itself clarified that only such persons would be entitled for consideration for their regularization by way of onetime measure who were irregularly and not illegally appointed and have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned post. Having regard to the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), the petitioners all of whom are said to have been engaged on daily wages and had continued against unsanctioned post would not be entitled for regularization of their services. 9. As a matter of fact, from the pleadings in the writ application, it would appear that the main challenge to the impugned order is based on the ground non-compliance of the direction given in the Division Bench judgment in the case of Daya Nand Sinha (supra). It would be therefore, essential to first examine as to the directions which were given by the division bench this Court in the case of Daya Nand Sinha (supra) relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “(1) The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar shall constitute a committee of three Secretaries within a period of two months from today to examine the manner and mode and the type of appointment and whether such appointments are if considered with the Recruitment Rules on regular posts, irregularities made or illegally made or not. (2) Such committee shall consider the individual case after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected employees, the procedure for which the committee shall evolve its own modality and modus operand so as to reach to a conclusion as to the nature of the appointments of the employees covered in this group of petitions and to ascertain whether their appointments are regular, irregular or illegal and whether they are falling within the ambit of the observations made in paragraphs 45 and 53 of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) (supra) case judgment. Uma Devi (3) (supra) case judgment. (3) The Committee shall undoubtedly, take a decision in the light of the law laid down by the constitution bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court Vs. Uma Devi (3) (supra) and in particular in the light of the observations which are quoted herein above. (4) It shall also be remembered that the exercise of regularization, if required, shall be a one time measure. (5) The exercise by the committee is directed to be completed within six weeks after the creations thereof and in the event of any necessary it will be open for the concerned party to seel extension of time by taking leave from this Court. (6) The contention that in some of the cases out of the present group in earlier round of litigation finality has been attained and achieved shall, also, be examined by the committee. (7) Until the Committee concludes it process and exercise directed hereinabove, the status quo in respect of the petitioners obtainable as on today, is directed to be maintained.” 10. Admittedly, the Chief Secretary had constituted a Committee which consisted of the Secretary to the Minor Irrigation Department, three Chief Engineers, Deputy Secretary and Project Coordinator, this Court would not find any wrong or bad in the constitution of such Committee. 11. As a matter of fact, when the petitioners in paragraph nos. 7 & 8 have also admitted that they were given notice to appear before the Committee and they had also appeared before the Committee on 17.10.2008, the direction given by the Division Bench as with regard to the personal hearing for individual consideration was also complied. From reading of the impugned order, it is also clear that the Committee obtained individual service history of each of the petitioners which have been in fact enclosed as Annexure-2 Series. In their presence, it cannot be said that the Committee had passed in mechanical order without looking into the records. 12. Finally, the Committee had addressed itself to the observations made in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and had rejected the case of the petitioners by taking into account that they had been engaged on daily wages and had also worked for a period of more than ten years of daily wages but then their such engagement and continuation was against the unsanctioned post. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Committee had not followed the direction of the Division Bench of this Court which had categorically confined such consideration on the parameters of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 13. In view of the aforementioned materials on record showing full application of mind by the Committee, this Court will have no hesitation in holding that the direction of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Daya Nanda Sinha (supra) were complied in letter and spirit and the main ground on which the impugned orders have been assailed is itself found to be baseless. 14. That would lead this Court to the issue of acceding to the prayer of the petitioner for remitting the matter back once again for re-consideration as was done by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 19.10.2012 in CWJC No. 3982 of 2011 by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.L. Kesari (supra). This Court however would find that this very issue as with regard to regularization of service and the possible conflict in the judgment of the Uma Devi (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra) was made subject matter of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Sevak (supra) wherein it was held as follows:- “7. There was no conflict between (Uma Devi) (supra) and (M.L. Kesari) (supra). The ratio decidendi in the former with regard to the distinction between an illegal and irregular appointment for purposes of regularization had not been diluted or re-interpreted rather reaffirmed in the latter. The latter related to a claim for regularization by daily wages. The petitioners were not appointed on daily wage. Exigency of circumstances may justify a daily wage appointment but for appointment of the present nature regular procedures in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution had to be followed. If there was any conflict between the two judgments, the Constitution Bench judgment shall prevail. To avail the benefit of any observation at paragraph 7 of M.L. Kesari (supra) it had to be demonstrated that the initial appointment was in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution and on a sanctioned post. 32. In M.L. Kesari (supra) it was observed at paragraph 7 as follows:- “7. To avail the benefit of any observation at paragraph 7 of M.L. Kesari (supra) it had to be demonstrated that the initial appointment was in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution and on a sanctioned post. 32. In M.L. Kesari (supra) it was observed at paragraph 7 as follows:- “7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against “regularization” enunciated in Umadevi (3), if the following conditions are fulfilled:- (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.” (Emphasis added by us) 33. As we read the paragraph, in our humble opinion, and to the best of our appreciation and understanding, a person not appointed against a sanctioned post and not possessing the requisite qualification for the post is not entitled to regularization even if he has worked for over ten years. But a person possessing the requisite qualifications appointed against a sanctioned post and who has continued over ten years without aid of Court orders is eligible for regularization even if the appointment was made without the process of open competitive selection. The catena of decisions noticed by us of the Apex Court in no uncertain terms provide that if the appointment was in violation of Article 14 without advertisement and equal opportunity to all eligible for being considered, the question of regularization does not arise. Only if some rudimentary compliance even by registration with and calling of names from the employment exchange was followed, could regularization be considered if it was made against a sanctioned post. Mere appointment against a sanctioned post without furthermore shall not suffice. Only if some rudimentary compliance even by registration with and calling of names from the employment exchange was followed, could regularization be considered if it was made against a sanctioned post. Mere appointment against a sanctioned post without furthermore shall not suffice. With all the humility at our command, again in our humble opinion a competitive selection even in such a case is the mandate of the Constitution Bench at paragraph 43 extracted above.” 15. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench of this Court which has been rendered after the order of the learned single judge dated 19.10.2012 remitting the matter back once again for re-consideration in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.L. Kesri (supra), this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned single judge that this case should also be once again sent for reconsideration. The reasons for the same can be also found from the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Sevak (supra) wherein the conclusions were summed up in paragraph no.43, which reads as follows:- “43. We therefore sum up our conclusions and answer the reference as follows:- (A) Uma Devi (supra) prohibits regularization of daily wage, casual, ad-hoc and temporary appointments, the period of service being irrelevant; (B) An illegal appointment void ab-initio made contrary to the mandate of Article 14 without open competitive selection cannot be regularized under any circumstances. (C) Irregular appointments can be regularized if the appointment was made by an authority competent to do so, it was made on a vacant sanctioned post, in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution with equal opportunity for participation to others eligible by competitive selection and the candidate possessed the eligibility qualifications for a regular appointment to the post. (D) The appointment must not have been an individual favour doled out to the appointee alone and the person must have continued in service for over ten years without intervention of any court orders.” 16. As a matter of fact, when there is no dispute that the petitioners were also appointed on daily wages and in their such engagement there was no advertisement or selection, their initial engagement was itself in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which in turn would make their appointment illegal and not irregular. As a matter of fact, when there is no dispute that the petitioners were also appointed on daily wages and in their such engagement there was no advertisement or selection, their initial engagement was itself in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which in turn would make their appointment illegal and not irregular. The Full Bench in fact had considered this aspect also and had held as follows:- “44. The petitioners were appointed in temporary capacity by a process contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution without competitive selection as an individual favour doled out to them. There is no material to hold that they were appointed against vacant sanctioned post and possessed qualifications for the same. They were terminated before (Uma Devi) (supra) and have sought to retain their status by virtue of Court proceedings and are therefore not entitled to the benefits of paragraph 53. The issue of any procedural irregularity for a finding of forged appointment is therefore irrelevant.” 17. Thus, in the considered opinion, the case in hand is squarely covered by the ratio of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav (supra) and, accordingly, has to be also meet the same fate of its being dismissed. 18. That being so, this application is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.