sy-.^^^-.^-S—^— ' -^^rr:^"-y ^- IN THE HIQH CGURT ©FSIADHYA PMDESM AT JABALPUR Nisc.Pe'tition No.LZf^^ of 1992 ^ l^ MUemdra Kymar Si^ha S/o Late Shri, Brijenandais Pd» Simha, aged aboiit 34 years, R/o Kedarpyr Mohalla, ABibikapur 0j.stt. Sarguja (»)< -^ . ' ' ' 2, Nand Kishore Tiwari S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Tiwari, , B/o Gandhiiaagari Ambikap^r ©istt.S<arguja (»)^ PETITIdiERS, 3» Viraod Kamar Singh S/o Shri Lal Bihari Siagh, R/0 Near Chitra Mandir Talkies, ^toikapiar @istt« Sarg^ija ^<^-^^i ,j4. Sanjay Komar S^ S/o'Shri T»B»5iagh, B/o BehiRd Chitra'Maadir Talkies Gen.Post Mairic H@stel, Ambikapvr Distt^ S^rgtija (MP)^ Sat^ Sliubha Swanoakar W/©&avindra Kiamar ©ypta &/o Mayap^ir, ABabikapvr ©istt.'S^rgaja(5r)Si (>. ^» Deepak K^mar Mishra ^ / '^ &/Q s^ri Bhimsen Nishra, K/o Kedaipur, Ambikapyr ©istt.Syrfe^ja (NP)»' ^^. ^/?to Smt^ Nirmala Safo^i ^ 0/o Shri Bishwanath Sahy R/o Sadar toad,,^abikapur» Distt. Syrguja' ($S>)< ^ Versiis - 1« The Hanicipal Couiacil, Ambikapor E)istt< S^rguja (@P). » 2« The Chief Mianieipal Officer, MQnicipal Co^Eicil,^Arabikapur, ©istt,'Sargtaja 3» The Admxnistrator^ MdttiGipal Couiacil, ^Ambikapxary Bistto'Syrguja (MP), BESP0312ENTS PETITIQN ^NDER ARTICLE 226/227 ©F THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA FOR ISSUING A IT IN THE NAT0RE © CEKTI0RARI, m®WS ETC.ETC. ANE> ALSO FOR ISSUINQ HECESSARy ©IRECTIONS _—- AF^ p^ \y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON No.1726 of 1992 PETI'nONER : Nileiidra Kumar Sinha & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The Municipal Council, Aiibikapur & Others. PETITION LTNDER .4RTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITLTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asmhotri, J. Present: Slm J.P.Shukla, Advocate forthe petitioner No. 1 and 4, Slm Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner No. 5, Sliri A.N.Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner No. 6, SM Mohd. Asif Advocate for the petitioner No. 7. Sliri B.D.Gum, Advocate fbrthe respondents. QRALORDER (Passed on 08m day of Januar>r, 2010) 1. The petitioner No. 1 to 5 were appointed as Upper Division Teachers, the petitioner No. 6 was appoisited as Craft Teacher and the petitioner No. 7 was appointed as Lab Attendant, on adhoc basis by Municipal Higiier Secondary School, Aiiibikapur. Their services came to an end by the impugned order dated 12.05.1992 w.e.f. 13.05.1992 (F.N.). 2. The question which arises in the present petition is asto whether the petitioners appointed on ad hoc basis can continue 021 the posts or be reinstated i?i service when their services have been discontinued or disengaged thereafter. 3. Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners were not appointed in accordaiice with the coiistitutional scheme ofemployment. 4, I have heard leamed counsel appearmg for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is infomied at the bar that some oftlie petitioners have alreadyjoined other posts. <^ 5. The issue mvolved in the present petition is no longer res integra as the Supreme Court, m a czitena of decisions has made clear that the employees appointed on ad hoc basis have no right to continue in sendce or remstatement. The appointment itself is de hors the constitutional scheme ofemployment. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis and not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employmeiit. The appointment of the petitioners was purely on temporary basis. The petitioners have neither pleaded an^hing with regard to their selection process nor have filed any document in this regard. 7. Be that as it may, a tempora^, <3f6? Aoc employee/daily wager camiot claim regiilarization, continuance or reinstatemcnt iii sei'vice 021 the basis of appointaient which was temporary and not in accordance with law and the same was cle hors the constitutional scheme ofemployment, (See Secretafy, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others1, Inclicm Drugs^ & Pharmaceziticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltdf', Official Liquidator \\ Dayancmd and othet's and State ofPunjab anclOthers v. SurjitSingh and Others). 8. With regard to regularisation of the employees working on temporaty basis, the Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), observed as usider: "Thus, it is clear that adherence to the mle ofequality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the mle of law is the core of our Coiistitution, a court ^/ould certainly be disabled from passmg an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordermg the overlooking of the need to comply with the 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 2007 (1) SCC 408 3 (2008) 10 SCC 1 4(2009)9SCC514 requirements of Ailicle 14 read with Article 16 ofthe Constitution. Therefore, consistesit with the scheme for public ©mployment,this Court while layiiig dovm the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in teniis ofthe relevant mles and after a proper conipetition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right cn the appointee."5 9. The above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court has beeii reiterated by this Court inAshwam Kumar Verma & Others v\ State ofChhattigarh & Another5 and Somendra Pratap Singh v. The State ofM.P. & others6' Against the order passed in Somendra Pratap Singh (supra), the petitiosier therein prefeiTed a writ appeal being W.A. (PR) No. 2077/2008, which was dismissed by the Division Bench ofthis Court by order dated 29.04.2008 affinBmg the order passed by the Single Bench. Thereagainst, the matter was taken upto the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.(C) No. 27190/2008 (Somendra Pratap Singh v\ State of Chhattisgarh & Others\ which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court affliTning the view taken by this Coyrt, vide its order dated 23.03.2009. 10. This Court in Sanjay Patil v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another'' while dealing with similar issue observed that "if the State Goveniment has regiilarized some ofthe daily wagers, not appointed iii accordance with the coiistitutional scheme of employment, this Court camiot issue a positive direction to legalise the illegal appointment on tlie gi'ound that certain illegal appointments have been legalized/regularized by the employer, 5 ^W (S) No. 1743 of2009 decided on 28-4-2009 6 W.P.(S) No. 1347 of2005 decided on 26-2-2008 7 WP (S) No.5845 of2009 decided on 9-10-2009 :^^^ ^;^% /£^1 § ^'•^^^^ 11. In this context, the Supreme Court, in Ashok Kzmiar Sonkar v. Union of India8, observed as under: "34. It is not a case where appomtment was irregiilar. If an appointmeiit is , iiTegiilar, the same can be regiilarised. The Court mav not take serious note of an iiTegularity witlrin the meanmg of the provisions of the Act. But if an appomtment is illegal, it is non est in the eye of law, which renders the appointment to be a nullity. " 12. Fiulher, in State of Pimjcib & another v. Surjit Singh & Others , the Supreme Court reafimiied the above ratio in tlie followingterms: ''39. We would, however, before parting make an observation that the submission of the leanied counsel that onlv because some juniors have got the beneflt, the same by itself camiot be a gi'ound for extending the same benefit to the respondents herein. It is now wel! ktio^^ti ._ that the equality clause contained in .Ajlicle 14 should be invoked only where the parties are similarly situated and where orders passed in their favour are lega! and not illegal. It has a positive concept." 13. In vievv offoregomg, for fhe reasons stated heremabove and applying the well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe present case wherein the petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis, thus, they are not entitled to any relief. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aimt (2007) 4 SCC 54 (2009)98cc514