Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners on Class-IV post in the district of East Champaran.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioners are that the petitioners were appointed as DDT Sprayer, as seasonal employee on daily wages under the district Malaria Office, East Champaran, whereafter, work was being taken from them and wages were being paid to them. It is submitted that the petitioners had requested the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer as well as the learned District Magistrate to consider the case of the petitioners for preparing a panel and appointing them in the regular service of the State Government, however, to no avail. It is also submitted that the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy inasmuch as while some daily wage DDT Sprayer have been appointed on regular basis, whereas the petitioners have not been accommodated.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some similarly situated daily wage workers of Gaya district had filed a writ petition before this Court, bearing C.W.J.C. No.17637 of 2010, whereafter contempt petition was filed by them, bearing M.J.C. No. 3426 of 2016. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court had observed therein vide order dated 14.12.2016, that DDT Sprayers have already been appointed in eight districts, however, no steps have been taken for appointment in the District-Gaya, hence the District Magistrate, was directed to file affidavit, clarifying the position.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case that similar issue has been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.12.2019, passed in C.W.J.C. No.18612 of 2019 (Kapil Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) and other analogus cases, paragraphs no.28 and 29, whereof are being reproduced herein below: –

"28. Noticing the constitutional provisions and the law as declared by the Supreme Court referred to above, in my opinion, the advertisement to the extent it allows preference under sub-clause (1)(2) (3) (4) (5) and (6) of Clause 7 are held to be illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are struck down accordingly. Though, It may be open for the respondents to allow some reasonable weightage on rationale basis for those having work experience after having been selected through a transparent process of selection, the work experience as daily wager simpliciter, cannot itself he the sole/ main criteria for selection and appointment. The respondents are obliged to follow a fair process of selection in accordance with the statutory rules and constitutional. mandate. It is noteworthy that though the rules have been framed for selection and appointment against Class-IV (Group-D) posts, no clear and definite process of selection has been laid down, therein. If no transparent, fair and impartial procedure is adopted for judging the inter se merit of the candidates, who have applied in response to the advertisement made, the eligible candidates cannot get a fair chance to compete, which would be violative of the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution, as held in case of UPSC vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vagliela (supra).

29. These writ applications are accordingly disposed of. with specific direction to the respondents, particularly, the Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Commissioner, Madadh Division, Gaya and the District Magistrate, Gaya to ensure that the process of selection through the advertisement in question is completed by adopting a fair procedure. In my opinion, holding of written examination of the candidates who have applied against the said advertisement would be a fair procedure for preparation of merit-list, in the absence of any provision in the Rules. This, in my opinion,