JUDGMENT
Ashish N. Trivedi, J.
1. Petitioner No. 1 was engaged as a Daily Wager with effect from 1.1.1988 to discharge the duties and functions of Chaukidar in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering organisation Deoghar and Petitioner No. 2 was also engaged as a Daily Wager to discharge the duties and functions of a Roller khalasi since December, 1987 and received their wages. In support of these averments the petitioners have annexed the copies of the letters dated 14.9.1989 and 30.1.1990 as Annexures ‘1’ and ‘1/A’ issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Deoghar and the alleged recommendation made by the Junior Engineer dated 30.1.1990.
2. According to the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 made a representation on 9.11.1992 which was recommended by the Executive Engineer for regularisation of his services. The Executive Engineer further recommended by his letter No. 916 dated 16.10.1993 for regularisation of the services of Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 in the meanwhile continued to discharge his duties and functions as Roller Khalasi.
3. It further appears that the Superintending Engineer. Dumka by his letter No. 717 dated 31.7.1995 (Annexure ‘4’) adjusted the petitioners in the Work Charge Establishment against the post of Roller Driver in the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1500/- and it further appears from the said letter that the appointment/adjustment of the petitioners were purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without prior notice. In pursuance of the said letter dated 31.7.1995 (Annexure ‘4’), according to the petitioners, they joined their posts and had been discharging their duties regularly but to their utter dismay their services were terminated vide letter No. 374 dated 11.9.1995 issued by the Executive Engineer. Rural Engineering Organisation Division, Deoghar, Respondent No. 5 In view of the directions of the Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation Circle, Dumka, Respondent No. 4 contained in Annexures ‘5’ and ‘6’ respectively.
4. In pursuance of these orders the Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Sub-divisional Office, Deoghar, Respondent No. 6 rejected the joining reports of the Petitioners, a copy of the letter dated 21.1.1995 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Respondent No. 6 has been annexed as Annexure’7′.
5. According to the petitioners the termination of their services by the respondents after accepting their Joining on the post of Roller Driver is illegal and cannot be sustained, moreover they have been continuously working since 1988 to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities and there is no justifiable reason to mechanically terminate the services of the petitioners which was served upon the petitioners after about eight years and this action of the respondent is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Junior Counsel for Standing Counsel III appearing on behalf of the State.
7. By the order dated 3.9.1997 this Court disapproved the conduct of the State in not filing Counter Affidavit although it had been affirmed in the month of May, 1996 and was served on the counsel for the petitioners only on 3.9.1997 and in these circumstances the Court directed that the state must pay the cost of Rs. 500/- as a condition precedent for acceptance of the counter-affidavit. From the record it appears that the cost has yet not been deposited as directed in the order dated 3.9.1997 and as such the counter affidavit cannot be taken into account.
8. From perusal of the Office Order No. 814 dated 6.9.1995 (Annexure ‘6’) issued by the Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation Circle, Dumka, Respondent No. 4 it is evident that the State Government in the Personel and Administrative Reforms Department by the Resolution dated 18.6.1993 instructed that only such Daily Wagers who had worked for at least 240 days prior to 1.8.1985 could be considered for regular appointment which had to be made on the recommendations of a Committee presided by the departmental Secretary which had to ascertain the number of vacancies in existence and then the Daily Wagers who had been appointed earlier were to be given preference.
9. Admittedly the petitioners had been engaged after 1.8.1985 more specifically Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 1.1.1988 and Petitioner No.2 in December, 1987 on daily wages. Thus for being appointed either in the Work Charge Establishment or against Class IV posts preference had to be given to those Daily Wagers who had been engaged prior to 1.8.1985 and had worked for at least 240 days prior to the said date. The Government also resolved that those Dally Wagers who had been appointed after 1.8.1985 had to be disengaged forthwith. The Policy Decision of the State Government communicated by the Superintending Engineer Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department vide the Resolution dated 18.6.1993 which forms the basis of termination of the services of the Petitioners has not been questioned in the Writ Petition. Moreover, the petitioners were adjusted in the work Charge Establishment and their adjustments were purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without prior notice to them. The petitioners, therefore, had no right to appointment or continue to work in the Work Charge Establishment and thus there does not appear any illegality in the termination of the services of the petitioners from the Work Charge Establishment.
10. In the circumstances I find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.