Patna High Court on Regularization of Daily Wage Employees: Long Service Does Not Confer Permanent Employment

Case overview

Anand Kumar Sinha went to the High Court of Patna in the year 2018 for the sake of filing a case against the State of Bihar and other officials from the district Vaishali. The main objective of the petitioner was to challenge the validity of the interim panel made for Group D posts in response to Advertisement No. 01/2016 and demand the correction of his experience records. Additionally, it was requested from the court to regularize a Class IV employment since he claimed to have been a daily wage earner since 1995. The case trigger was the question of the legal right of a daily wage worker to automatically gain a permanent status after the extensive period of work.

Facts

Anand Kumar Sinha stated that he worked in the Hajipur Sub-Divisional Office and some other offices between January 15, 1995 and January 1999. Experience certificates and a certificate of character were provided to him for the work done.

He made an application in reply to Advertisement No. 01/2010 to the District Nazarat in 2010 when a revised panel was issued. His name was included in this panel at Serial No. 216/1999. It also stated that he worked for 845 days as a daily-wage typist.

Also Read- Top 5 Landmark Patna High Court Judgments of June 2026

In 2016, Advertisement No. 01/2016 was issued regarding Group D posts in Vaishali. The temporary panel was also published online. The name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 282 in the panel. However, he stated that there were mistakes regarding his experience and the total number of days of his work. He made representations to the concerned authority to rectify the errors in the panel in February 2017 and September 2017. However, he did not receive any response.

The respondents claimed that the relief had lost its relevance. They clarified that at the meeting held on 09.05.2018, the District Selection Committee annulled all vacancies notified under 01/2016, in compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court in SLP No. 32079/2015 and the letter of the Chief Secretary dated 07.02.2018. The advertisement, having been annulled, the panel based on it disappeared as well.

The respondents also claimed that the petitioner could not be given relief in the form of regularization, since public appointments need to be made on the basis of advertisements and open competition.

Courts Observations / Reasoning

The court pointed out that since Advertisement No. 01/2016 has been cancelled, the petitioner’s plea for quashing the interim panel has become irrelevant. Hence, the only issue left for consideration is that of regularization.

The court then referred to various Supreme Court decisions to ascertain the law regarding public appointments and regularization.

Also Read- Patna High Court Acquits Gang Rape Convicts Due to Serious Investigation Lapses, Upholds Assault Convictions

1. Equal treatment in appointments: The court stated that the government must make the appointment of a candidate in a fair manner and not arbitrarily like private citizens. The provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 mandate transparency, reasonableness and equality. Any appointment done without the process of issuing advertisement and holding open competition would violate Article 16.
2. Regularization cannot be a mode of appointment: The court also held that regularization as a mode of appointment is prohibited and this view has been taken in the case of M.P. State Coop. Bank vs. Nanuram Yadav and Uma Devi vs. State of Karnataka. The court held that the person who enters through the backdoor must come out through the backdoor and enter through the proper door.
3. Job done on daily basis is not permanent: The court made it clear that a job done on a daily basis qualifies as a job that has been taken for a specific period of time. The employer must comply with recruitment rules mentioned in Article 309 to make the daily wage job permanent. He also has to give chances to eligible candidates from the open market to apply for the job.
4. Law has no compassion: The court mentioned that judges should refrain from acting out of excessive compassion. In cases where the procedure of selecting people has been corrupted, one may have to annul the whole selection process.
5. Right to work: Both the Articles 39 and 21 introduce into practice the right to earn for a living; however, the Supreme Court, in the case of Uma Devi, rejected the notion of the right to get a job. If people were allowed to file such claims, people with better qualifications would have missed their chances to compete  The court noticed that there was no proof of the petitioner being employed as a daily wage worker through a transparent process that ensured equal opportunity for everyone else. Such employment is usually informal and is termed as back door employment.

By stating the above, the court held that public appointments should be done only through proper advertisement and selection in a fair and unbiased manner outside of which is against the law.

Also Read – Patna High Court: Reasoned Order Mandatory to Condon Delay in Section 138 NI Act Complaints

Decision

In accordance with the legal logic detailed in the previous sections of this judgment, the Patna High Court concluded as follows:

1. The application for quashing the temporary composition shown in the Advertisement No. 01/2016 was declared as “infructuous.” It was noted that the advertisement and posts had already been cancelled by the concerned authorities in May 2018.

2. The application for regularization/absorption of the applicant into a post of Class-IV was denied by the court.

3. The writ application was rejected completely.

Conclusion

This ruling reiterates a fundamental principle of public employment in India which is that appointment to government posts should always be done in a manner that is fair and open to all. Being in service for a long time does not grant any right to regularization.

The court stated that the concept of regularization cannot be misused to avoid Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

There is equal opportunity to apply for the job after public announcement of job openings for everyone who qualifies.

Thus, for the petitioner this means that although he claimed to have been working since 1995, he cannot be regularized unless he passes through the procedures set for recruitment.

Official Judgment :

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjOTYyMiMyMDE4IzEjTg==—ak1—u4VLkxXrzE=

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Editorial Note: This article has been reviewed by the LegalRath Editorial Team to ensure legal accuracy, editorial quality, and clarity before publication.