2026:JHHC:705 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.4181 of 2022 ------ 1. Rakesh Kumar Choudhary, son of Radheshyam Chaudhary, resident of Village Motia, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 2. Laxmikant Yadav, son of Late Narayan Yadav, resident of Village Chichohari, P.O. Dharmodih, P.S. Dharmodih, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 3. Birjanand Pandit, son of Sukhdeo Pandit, resident of Pathra, P.O. Poreyahat, P.S. Poreyahat, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 4. Shailendra Thakur, son of Bhushidhar Thakur, resident of Chakeshwari, P.O. Dubrajur, P.S. Godda Mufassil, District Godda, State Jharkhand. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jaganathpur, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jaganathpur, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 3. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand, FFP Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jaganathpur, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 4. The Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rule Employees Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand, FFP Building, First Floor, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jaganathpur, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 5. Deputy Commissioner, Godda, Godda Collectorate, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 6. Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda, DDC Office, Godda, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand. 7. Block Development Office, Pathergama, BDO Office, Pathergama, P.O. Pathergama, P.S. Pathergama, District Godda, Jharkhand. 8. Block Development Office, Godda, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda, District Godda, State Jharkhand. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, SC-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V ------ 2026:JHHC:705 2 14/ 12.01.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order by which the petitioners have been removed, as they were working as Daily Wager. The petitioners claim regularization along with payment of back wages. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that the petitioners had worked for ten years and thereafter they have been removed, thus their services need to be regularized after reinstatement. 4. After going through the petition, I find that the petitioners have been removed in the year 2022. Admittedly, the petitioners were engaged by the respondents without following the constitutional provision. Furthermore, the petitioners have been engaged on daily wage basis and thereafter they have been removed. There is no Advertisement issued prior to engaging these petitioners. The appointment thus cannot be said to be irregular, rather it is an illegal appointment and violates the constitutional provision. Furthermore, since the petitioners are not in service also, there cannot be any regularization. Thus, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 12th January, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 14.01.2026