Heard Mr. Amarendra Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kunal Tiwari, learned A.C. to G.A.2 for the State.

2. With the consent of the parties the writ petition has been heard with a view to final disposal at the stage of admission.

3. The writ petition was initially filed praying for quashing of the order bearing memo No.505 dated 5.10.2016 issued under the signature of the respondent No.6 Engineer-in-Chief whereby an advisory has been issued by the Engineer-in-Chief to the Chief Engineer the respondent No.7 to take steps for absorption of the daily wage employees in the light of the stipulations present in the resolution bearing No.639 dated 16.3.2006 (wrongly typed as 16.3.2016) of the State Government and by following the parameters laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. since reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The order also directs for removal of such of the daily wage employees who do not fulfill the parameters laid down in the judgment. A copy of such direction is impugned at Annexure-11 to the writ petition.

4. The petitioners alongside have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Selection Committee constituted as per the resolution No.639 dated 16.3.2006 under the Chairmanship of the Collector, Darbhanga respondent no.5, to conclude the steps taken towards the absorption/regularization of the services of the daily wage employees following the recommendation of the Chief Engineer present in his Memo No.249 dated 30.1.2014, a copy of which is present at Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

5. While the writ petition is pending for consideration on the reliefs so prayed that the respondents acting on the advise tendered by the Engineer-in-Chief present at Annexure-11 and holding that the petitioners do not fulfill the parameters laid down in the judgment of Uma Devi (supra) have issued a termination order dated 31.3.2017 issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer which has been placed on record vide Annexure-14 to I.A. No. 4399 of 2017 and the petitioners seek leave of the court to question the order in the present proceeding itself which is accordingly allowed.

6. I.A.No.4399 of 2014 is allowed.

7. It is not in dispute that these petitioners have been working albeit on daily wage basis in the respondent Water Resources Department under the supervisory control of the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 since last about 25 years. The details are present at paragraph 18 of the writ petition and has not been disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit. For the sake of convenience the details are reproduced hereinbelow:

I. Pandav Yadav:-
Pt. No. 1	Pandav Yadav	Year of engagement			No. Days remained engaged
		1985			81 days
		1986			174 days
		1987			264
		1988			298 days
		1989			303 days
		1990			260 days
		1991			312 days
		1992			312 days
		1993			312 days
		1994			312 days
		1995			312 days
		1996			312 days
		1997			312 days
		1998			312 days
		1999			312 days
		2000			312 days
		2001			312 days
		2002			312 days
		2003			312 days
		2004			312 days
		2005			312 days
		2006			312 days
		2007			312 days
		2008			312 days
		2009			312 days
		2010			312 days
		2011			312 days
		2012			312 days
		2013			312 days
II. Hit Lal Yadav:-
Pt.No.2	Hit Lal Yadav	Year of engagement			No. Days remained engaged
		1985			141 days
		1986			285 days
		1987			207 days
		1988			301 days
		1989			333 days
		1990			312 days
		1991			321 days
		1992			318 days
		1993			312 days
		1994			312 days
		1995			312 days
		1996			312 days