JUDGMENT : Grievance of the petitioners is that the decision taken in the meeting of District Establishment Committee held on 05.10.2012 whereunder, it was decided to allot 20 marks to the candidates working on daily-wages has not been followed in their cases and had 20 marks been allotted to them, they would have qualified for appointment. 2. Heard. 3. At the outset, counsel for the parties state that the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical. Question involved in the writ petitions is, whether the petitioners working under District Rural Development Agency or Nazarat and in the Block Offices or in the office of Deputy Development Commissioner can be treated daily-wages employee on Class-IV posts under the State Government or not ? For the sake of convenience facts in W.P. (S) No. 6745 of 2012 are recoded hereinafter. 4. The petitioners 27 in numbers, pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2010, submitted their applications for appointment on Class-IV post for Pakur Collectoriate and they appeared in the written examination, however, they were not called for interview. Now, they have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to various documents produced in the present proceeding, submits that the petitioners who are working on daily-wages under District Rural Development Agency, Nazarat, Block Offices etc. must, in view of the nature of work performed by them, be deemed to be employed on daily-wages on Class-IV posts under the State Government. It is submitted that in “Uma Kant Sahay Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others”, W.P.(S) No. 6229 of 2015, this Court has held that employees working under District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) are Government employees and while so, the petitioners who are working on different posts as daily-wagers must be held eligible for grant of 20 marks. 5. The learned State counsel, however, opposes the prayer in the writ petitions and submits that the petitioners are not working on Grade-IV posts as daily-wagers. In view of the specific stipulation in the Resolution of the District Establishment Committee, 20 marks can be allotted to only those persons who are working on Grade-IV posts. 6. Considered. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners submitted their applications by the due date, that is, 30.06.2010 and they appeared in the written examination. In view of the specific stipulation in the Resolution of the District Establishment Committee, 20 marks can be allotted to only those persons who are working on Grade-IV posts. 6. Considered. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners submitted their applications by the due date, that is, 30.06.2010 and they appeared in the written examination. Advertisement No. 01/2010 was issued for appointment on the vacant post of Peon/Class-IV employees in the Collectoriate and other offices under the State Government. For such appointments a panel was to be prepared and, as noticed above, in the meeting of the District Establishment Committee held on 05.10.2012, it was decided to allot 20 marks to the applicants working on Grade-IV posts on daily-wages. In the Advertisement, it is reflected that the candidates working in Pakur district shall be given preference. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioners are not working on Grade-IV posts on daily-wages and thus, they cannot be awarded 20 marks. It has been denied that the petitioners who are working as Computer Operators fall under the said category. It has been stated that after the written test, the candidates were called for cycling test and thereafter, interview was held from 02.11.2012. Further stand of the respondents is that the petitioners working under the District Rural Development Agency are not working in the Government Offices. In this context, I find that in “Uma Kant Sahay” case it has not been held by this Court that the employees working under the District Rural Development Agency are the State Government employees. Similar objection has been raised in respect of other petitioners. Insofar as, petitioner nos. 17 to 24 are concerned, it is pleaded that they are working as Messengers on daily-wages and they are paid for the days when their services are required. The petitioners have filed a supplementary-affidavit dated 12.08.2015, in which a copy of order dated 31.05.2012 has been annexed. Referring to the said letter and orders dated 03.08.2013 and 06.02.2009, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are regular daily-wages employees working under the Nazarat as Ummidwar Peon. This submission is misconceived. Endorsement on letter dated 31.05.2012 corroborates the stand taken by the respondents inasmuch as, the petitioner no.18 was paid only Rs. 200/in a month. Obviously, he is not working on regular basis. This submission is misconceived. Endorsement on letter dated 31.05.2012 corroborates the stand taken by the respondents inasmuch as, the petitioner no.18 was paid only Rs. 200/in a month. Obviously, he is not working on regular basis. In the present proceeding, the petitioner nos. 17 to 24 have not pleaded that they were appointed in a pay-scale equivalent to Class-IV employees. There is no material on record which would indicate that the petitioners employed as Ummidwar Messengers are working on daily wages on regular basis. The payment made to these petitioners would indicate that they are engaged as per the needs. 8. Similar objections have been raised in respect of other petitioners also. In view of the materials brought on record, no inference can be drawn that the petitioners are daily-wage employees working on Class-IV posts under the State Government. The respondents have averred that after written test, cycling test and interview were held in the year, 2012 itself. The petitioners were not called for cycling test or interview and now, appointments have been made. In the advertisement, it was declared that the panel would survive for one year only. Moreover, the petitioners have neither pleaded nor produce any material which would indicate that other similarly situated person has been allotted 20 marks, treating him a daily-wage employee working on Class-IV post. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no infirmity in the decision of the respondents in not granting 20 marks to the petitioners which was intended to be allotted to the candidates who were working on daily-wages on Class-IV posts under the State Government. 9. In the result, the writ petitions stand dismissed.