ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. By filing this writ application, the petitioner has made two folds prayer; (i) to pay his arrears of salary from 01.03.1993 to 30.04.2008 and (ii) to regularize the service of the petitioner in Class-IV post under the respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as Night Watchman under the Child Development Project Officer, Latehar. He was appointed orally and there is no appointment letter issued in this regard. Learned counsel further submits that he was allowed to mark his attendance in a Register, which was duly counter signed by one of the representative of the Child Development Project Officer. He further submits that he has worked to the full satisfaction of the respondents for which certificates were issued to him, by the office from time to time. It is admitted that he worked till 30.04.2008 and thereafter, no work was taken from the petitioner by the respondents. The claim of the petitioner is that he should be regularized and he should be paid his arrears of wages/salaries from 01.03.1993 to 30.04.2008, which, according to the petitioner, has not been paid. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the State of Jharkhand has formulated a Scheme for regularization in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi & Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 [: 2006 (2) JLJR (SC) 282]” and, therefore, the case of the petitioner needs to be considered for regularization in terms of the Scheme. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case and this Court do not feel necessary to call for a counter affidavit as in a writ application 2the petitioner should make out a prima facie case. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner was not appointed by any authority and if he was working, he was working illegally and his alleged engagement is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot be regularized and the said Scheme is also not applicable, so far as the case of this petitioner is concerned. It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot be regularized and the said Scheme is also not applicable, so far as the case of this petitioner is concerned. It is further submitted that the said Scheme is for the daily wage and casual employees of the State, who are still working under the State and in this case admittedly, the petitioner is not working since 2008. 7. After hearing the parties, I find that no appointment letter has been issued to the petitioner. As per the petitioner himself, he was appointed orally. There is no concept of oral appointment. None of the procedure for appointment has been followed in this case. In this case, admittedly, there is violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution in employment of the petitioner, if at all he was appointed. Mere signing of Register for marking his attendance, will not prove that the petitioner was working legally under the respondents. Admittedly, no work was taken from the petitioner since 2008 itself. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Oshiar Prasad & Others versus Employees in Relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washeroy of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 71 [: 2015 (1) JLJR (SC) 391]”, has held that it is a settled principle of law that absorption and regularisation in service can be claimed or/and granted only when the contract of employment subsists and is in force inter se employee and the employer. Once it comes to an end either by efflux of time or as per the terms of the contract of employment or by its termination by the employer, then in such event, the relationship of employee and employer comes to an end and no longer subsists, except for the limited purpose to examine the legality and correctness of its termination.” 9. It has also been held that to regularize the service the mandatory requirement is subsistence of this relationship of the employee and the employer. If there is no relationship of employee and employer, no regularization can be ordered. 10. Further, the issue of regularization has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Secretary, State of Karnataka and others” (supra). 11. If there is no relationship of employee and employer, no regularization can be ordered. 10. Further, the issue of regularization has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Secretary, State of Karnataka and others” (supra). 11. Applying the ratio laid down in both the cases, I find that the appointment of the petitioner, if any, is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and is an illegal one. It is not irregular appointment. Thus, no order can be passed to regularize the petitioner. 12. So far as the claim of wages/salary of the petitioner for the period from 01.03.1993 to 30.04.2008 is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach Respondent no. 5 Child Development Project Officer, Latehar by filing a representation annexing necessary documents in support of his claim that he worked for the period from 01.03.1993 to 30.04.2008. On receipt of such representation, along with supporting documents, the said respondent no. 5 will inquire into the matter and will pass an appropriate reasoned order on the claim of the petitioner in respect of arrears of his salaries. If the said respondent finds that the petitioner had worked during the said period and his salary has not been paid, the same should be paid to the petitioner. 13. It is expected that the entire exercise must be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner. 14. With this observation and direction, this writ application stands disposed of.