Regularisation of casual labourers is not permissible in the absence of a statutory provision or policy decision. Appointments must be made only on sanctioned posts and following procedures laid down in the Act and Article 16 of the Constitution.

S.B. Sinha and Shashank Kumar Singh, JJ.

All these three writ applications involving common questions of fact and law were taken for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners in these applications have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise their services.

3. The petitioners were appointed as daily wage casual labourers. According to them, they have been working for a period of five years but despite the same their services have not been regularised.

4. The petitioners have contended that the State of Bihar has adopted a policy decision as would be evident from the Memo No. 3955 dated 10.4.1993 in terms whereof preferences are required to be given to the employees who have worked for a period of more than 240 days.

5. Dr. Sadanand Jha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners inter-alia submitted that for the purpose of regularisation of the employees, no provision in the statute needs to exist inasmuch as the scheme of regularisation has to be framed keeping in view Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as also decisions of the Supreme Court of India which have the force of law.

6. The learned counsel in this connection has relied upon a decision in All India Imam Organisation and others versus Union of India and others reported in 1993 (3) S.C.C., 584 and in State of Haryana and others versus Piara Singh and others reported in AIR 1992 S.C., 2130.

The learned counsel further drew our attention to the statement made in Paragraph-13 of the counter-affidavit as also Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ application for the purpose of showing that about 300 sanctioned posts are lying vacant.

It was further submitted that even bonus and other benefits have been directed to be paid to the petitioners and, thus, they have been treated as regular employees.

7. Mr. Jyoti Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Rajendra Agricultural University Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act) as also statutes framed thereunder, the appointments have to be made in terms of the provisions laid down therein.

It was submitted that the University can neither create any post nor has any fund to pay the salary of the regular staff. It was pointed our that it is the job of the State Government to provide fund to the Respondent-University as also to sanction the posts.

8. From a perusal of the latter dated 10.1.1993 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, it appears that the Principal of the College has stated therein that there exists vacancies in the sanctioned posts.

9. On the other hand, the Respondent-University in its counter-affidavit specifically asserted that none of the petitioners had been engaged or appointed against any sanctioned posts. It was further stated that only on non-availability of the vacancy or sanctioned posts, labourers are engaged on daily wage in the exigencies of works.

It has been submitted that the Board of Management of the University has not adopted any policy decision on the pattern of the circular of the University as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application.

10. It is now well settled by reason of various decisions of this Court that regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. It is also well known that any appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of statute governing the term of appointment as also Article 16 of the Constitution of India is a nullity.

This aspect of the matter has been considered in great details by several Division Benches of this Court as also by the Supreme Court of India.

Reference in this connection may be made to Vijay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1993 (1) P.L.J.R., 99 and Sitaram Thakur vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1994 (1) P.L.J.R. 68.

11. In Sitaram Thakur's case (supra) this Court while distinguishing the decision of the Supreme C