ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:– “(i) For grant of an appropriate writ for quashing the letter no. 3/VI-1017/2001-4205 dated 31.12.2001 of the Commissioner and Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure 6) terminating the service of the petitioner on the ground that the appointing authority had no locus standi to make appointment. (ii) For grant of an appropriate writ for quashing letter no. 4/Vi-02-1084/02 Patna 3865 dated 28.6.2002 issued under the signature of Secretary and Commissioner, Public Health Engineering Department (Annexure 9) amending letter no. 4205 dated 31.12.2001 to the effect that the petitioner would be given the benefit of daily wage employee in place of work charge employee with effect from 1.4.2001. (iii) For grant of an appropriate writ for quashing the order no.91 dated 16.4.2008 issued under the signature of the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar issued under memo no. 271 dated 16.4.2008 (Annexure 12) rejecting the case of the petitioner for his regularization/ absorption and for a direction to the respondents to absorb him in regular establishment. (iv) For grant of an appropriate writ for quashing that part of the resulution no. 639 dated 16.3.2006 (Annexure 15) whereby it has been resolved that the inter se seniority of daily wagers would be determined on the basis of their age.” 3. Mr. V.R.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer has basically concentrated on the aspect that the Government circular dated 16.3.2006 published in the Bihar Gazette on 25th April, 2006 laying down norms of regularization in service of daily wager employees suffers from vice of being arbitrary and thus, in teeth of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that whenever regularization of daily wager has to be made its date of his entry as daily wager employee which should weigh as the criteria for regularization and the age of daily wager employee cannot be made basis for regularization of service. In this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 . 4. In this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State having filed his counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit has taken a stand that ordinarily there would be no scope of regularizing the service of a daily wager employee and in this regard he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2013(1) PLJR 964 . He has further submitted that in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & ors., reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 , the State can at best frame a scheme for regularization wherein it can lay down the criteria as per observations and directions given therein. According to the learned counsel for the State, the Government decision dated 16.3.2006 meets the requirement laid down for regularization of service in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 5. There is no difficulty in appreciating the concern of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when a daily wager employee continues for a long period without any interruption he has at least a legitimate expectation of being considered for being brought in regular establishment. The question, however, would be how a daily wager can be brought into a regular establishment. The mode of direct recruitment being the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India any person who surreptitiously walked into the service without any advertisement or selection even by way of engagement as a daily wages employee cannot claim any preferential right for regularization in service, inasmuch as regularization by itself cannot be a mode of appointment. 6. It was in this regard that ultimately the Apex Court in Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra) had gone to hold that an illegal appointment can never be regularized. 6. It was in this regard that ultimately the Apex Court in Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra) had gone to hold that an illegal appointment can never be regularized. What would be a legal has also been explained by clarifying that any appointment in violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India without advertisement and without undergoing the selection process would be an illegal appointment and not irregular appointment. Having thus deprecated not only the practice but even the earlier judicial view with regard to extending sympathy for regularization in service to the daily wagers and others the Apex Court had also recorded in its judgment that regularization of service of irregularly appointed person by way of one time exercise can be envisaged if there is a policy for the same and it had also fixed a time limit of minimum ten years. 7. These aspects subsequently came to the notice of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav (supra) wherein having discussed the scope of the judgment of Uma Devi (supra) in the light of the subsequent judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L.Kesari, reported in (2010)9 SCC 247 , it had framed the following question:– “If (2010)9 SCC 247 (The State of Karnataka Vs. M.L.Kesari) makes a departure from the distinction between an illegal and irregular appointment as held in (2006)4 SCC 1 [:2006(2) PLJR (SC) 363] (State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi) for purposes of regularization. If it does, shall it constitute a precedent? 8. The Full Bench thereafter having discussed the matter elaborately had come to the following conclusion and had answered the reference in the following terms:– “(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. (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.” 9. It has to be noted that in paragraph 44 the individual cases of the petitioners before the Full Bench was also considered and it was held as follows:– “The petitioners were appointed in temporary capacity by 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 benefit of paragraph 53. The issue of any procedural irregularity for a finding of forged appointment is therefore irrelevant.” 10. In view of above, there would be no difficulty in holding that an employee engaged on daily wages without observing the prescribed procedure for appointment, namely, issuance of advertisement followed by undergoing selection procedure can never be regularized. 11. The expectation carved out in the Full Bench in the case of Ram Sewak Yadav (supra) in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), therefore, only envisages a scheme for regularizing the service of the persons who have continued for ten years and whose appointment is not in teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and/or have not completed the period of ten years on the cruches of any judicial order. 12. In this background if the Government decision dated 16.3.2006 is taken into consideration it would be found that the same only is a revised policy decision which was earlier in vogue in view of resolution No. 5940 dated 18.6.1993. 12. In this background if the Government decision dated 16.3.2006 is taken into consideration it would be found that the same only is a revised policy decision which was earlier in vogue in view of resolution No. 5940 dated 18.6.1993. Earlier in the said resolution dated 18.6.1993 there was a provision that no daily wager employee should be allowed to remain in service who have been engaged on or after 1.8.1985. Later on the cut-off date was changed from 1.8.1985 to 11.12.1990 and this was notified in resolution No. 639 dated 16.3.2006 as would be evidenced from the first paragraph of the aforementioned Government resolution dated 16.3.2006 whose validity has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ application. As would be found from the first paragraph of resolution No. 639 dated 16.3.2006 the same only lays down the manner of direct appointment in which everything being equal preference was to be given to a daily wager employee if he had been appointed prior to cut-off date. Having regard to the aforementioned background the Government in the resolution dated 16.3.2006 had decided to lay down that such of the daily wagers continuing in service who had completed 240 days service would be entitled for being appointed against regular post by following the procedure and such procedure laid down therein reads as follows:– (1) tks nSfud osru Hkksxh 11.12.90 ds iwoZ ls de ls de 240 fnuksa ls dk;Zjr gS ;k dk;Zjr jgs gSA ;s fu;fefrdj.k ij fopkj gsrq ;ksX; gksaxsA lewg ^^x** ds inksa ij dk;Zjr ,sls nSfud osruHkksfx;ksa dh fu;qfDr fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx ds ekè;e ls fo'ks"k lfefr ijh{kk ds vkèkkj ij dh tk;sxhA lewg ^^?k** esa ,slh fu;qfDr fuEure osrueku ds inksa ij lek;kstu ds vkèkkj ij dh tk;sxhA ijUrq lHkh ekeyksa esa fliQZ ,d volj (ykbZiQ ykbZu vksijVhU;wVh) fn;k tk;sxk] ftlesa liQy ugha jgus ij fjfDr ds vuqikyudÙkkZ ds dkj.k lek;kstu ugha gksus ij ,sls nSfud osruHkksfx;ksa dks bl ladYi dh dafMdk 5 esa fufgr izfØ;kuqlkj dk;ZeqDr dj fn;k tk;sxkA (2) lewg&^^x** ds inksa ij nSfud osruHkksfx;ksa dks fu;fer fu;qfDr dk volj nsus ds fy, fuEukafdr vkèkkj ,oa izfdz;k gksxh& 1. ,sls nSfud osruHkksxh dfeZ;ksa dh fu;fer fu;qfDr fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr fo'ks"k lfefr ijh{kk esa liQy gksus ij gh dh tk,xhA 2. ftl in ij fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu fn;k tk;sxk mlds fy, fuèkkZfjr vgZrk jguk vko';d gksxkA 3. ,sls nSfud osruHkksxh dfeZ;ksa dh fu;fer fu;qfDr fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr fo'ks"k lfefr ijh{kk esa liQy gksus ij gh dh tk,xhA 2. ftl in ij fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu fn;k tk;sxk mlds fy, fuèkkZfjr vgZrk jguk vko';d gksxkA 3. ijh{kk esa liQy gksus ,oa fjfDr miyCèk jgus ij gh fu;qfDr dh tk ldsxhA** 13. From a conjoint reading of the provisions of the aforementioned Government resolution dated 16.3.2006 it would thus emerge that the Government has only made a provision for adjustment (Samayojan) for such daily wager employee in regular service where they were working and their appointment was made against the vacant sanctioned post. It is only a qualified category of daily wagers who had worked continuously for a period of five years and at least 240 days in each of five years that they get entitled for being included in the panel and in such panel the seniority is to be fixed as per age of daily wager employee. 14. The submission, therefore, of Mr. Singh that the age should not have been the criteria and in fact the date of engagement on daily wages should have been the criteria for drawing seniority for regularization of daily wages employee does not seem to be either logical or rationale. This Court can take a judicial notice that when daily wages appointments are being made, no advertisement are being issued and therefore, no one gets an opportunity to be considered against those daily wages engagement. If every employer in every department has been engaging the persons on daily wages as per his own whims the resultant seniority on the basis of engagement will be only producing a disastrous effect by giving shelter or protection to illegally engaged persons. It is here that the Government has come out with a correct policy of making age the basis for regularization (adjustment) by way of one time exercise. The Government decision, therefore, that every one who had completed at least five years service in daily wages and in each of the year have worked for 240 days creates a class in itself and segregates the daily wagers who have no such disqualification. The Government decision, therefore, that every one who had completed at least five years service in daily wages and in each of the year have worked for 240 days creates a class in itself and segregates the daily wagers who have no such disqualification. Thus if there are limited number of vacancies on which such adjustment/ regularization of daily wagers has to be made, the criteria of age cannot be said to be violating any statutory provision or offending the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 15. The principle which has to be sought to be invoked on the basis of the case of Direct Recruit's case (supra), has to be also only noted for being rejected in fact because what has been decided in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in that case is in relation to fixation of seniority who have been drawn from different sources and has to giving them the benefit of their past service while fixing their seniority. Here none of the daily wages have been taken in service. They are still to be considered and for consideration the criteria has been evolved giving a fixed period of working for being eligible for regularization/ adjustment and among them those who are of more age have been given an opportunity to be considered earlier in comparison to a person who is lower in age and has a chance of at least making it in future. 16. Having thus considered the matter from all angles it has to be held that the scheme which has been evolved by the Government being itself a one time measure for regularization of service, that there is nothing offending in the Government resolution dated 16.3.2006 wherein a rational criteria has been laid down for preparation of a penal on the basis of age. Such Government Resolution cannot be held bad either on fact or in law. 17. As discussed the appointment of the petitioner admittedly on daily wages has not been made after following the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, this Court will have no difficulty in following the ratio of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav (supra) wherein after laying down the law the claim of regularization of similarly situated person was also rejected by the Full Bench. 18. 18. In view of above, this Court does not find any merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed.