(^,^^ ^ :^2^ CF0000281778 IK THE M.P. STAffE AOMIBiai'EariVB IRII O.A. No.-3 2-s's OE' 1993 -SSBUSV-. APPI.ICAHC; BESPONEEms; ebuleshwar Yadu -Versas- State ef H.P. & 4 o-tbers APPLICASIOH UBEeR_@a?IOH__19, OF, THE_Ar)KIHXSI_BATI?E -SRIBlJN&LS-&CT.ic'85—---- 1. 2. TSS&l^S OS_ AgPI.IC&RS \ ChQlesbwar Yadu S/o Shri Shasbl Sunder Aged about 23 years S/o Village Kamarai. Khurd, Pos-t s Beobbog 493 890 Sistt; Raipur (MP) BET&ILS PF EESPONI2:NTS: 1. State e£ Hadhya Prsdesh 3'hrough the Secretary, Scheol Sdacatlen, Vallabh Bbawan» BHOPAL (HP) 2. ¥he ijoint Director, Public Instructioas* Raipur Division; BAIPCTfi (HP) 3. The Dy. Dlrector, Public Instxuctions, Raipur Sivls.ion, B&IPUR_ (_MP) 4. The Bleck gducation Officer. Block Deobbog BJ-sfets B&IPOR (MP) The Head Has-fcer» GeveFament Hiddle School, Iiatapara Block s Deobheg B.i.stt.S EAIPUR (iSIP) P&RrXCUL&BS GF OSEEES &G&INST _BHICH.&PEI>ICM'IOH IS B&ms HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. Writ Petition (Sl No.83Q/2005 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Chuteshwar Yadu Versus State <rf M. P. and others FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF ORffiR Sdl- \ Manindra Mohan Shrivastavai Judge S ^'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. PEnTIQNER: RESPONDENTS: Writ P^ition (S) hto.830/2005 ChuteshwarYadu Versus State of M. P. and others resentShri Majkl All, counsel for the pettttoner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate fbr the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on li.April, 2010) Petitfoner has fited this petition assailing legatity and validity of order dated 23-10-1992 (Annexure D-1) by whfch, his servfees have been terminated as abo non-consideration ofhis appealdated 13-11-1992(Annexure E-1). (2) Vide order dated 28-09-19^ (Annexure-B), petittoner was appointed as Contingency Peon on Collector Rate until further orders on temporary tasis. Vlde order dated 23-10-1992 (Annexure E3-1), petitioner's servfces were terminated. Submission of learned counsel for the petitbner is that performance of work by the petittoner was throughout excellent and he had continuously worked for three years and his servtees were without any blemish and without any enquiry. As such, he was entitted for regularization in servfce. It is ateo argued that though p^ttioner's junior were retained in servfce, petitfoner was terminated from servkse and that too without affording him any opportunity of hearing. Though, an appeal was made followed by representations but the same have not been consklered. (4) ' Per contra, submissfon of leamed counsel for respondents is that petitioner was appointed as Contingency Peon on collector rate. tn view of the letter dated 16-10-1992 (Annexure R-1) ofJoint Director, Education, Raipurthatservtees ofthose persons who appointed on contingency basis be dispensedwtth, pettttoner's servtees ?;&^lit<»^.," /'l^. ~:~\ ? l .>i.eSs I Ei! ^ 1 were terminated. It is ateo submttted that petitfoner was engaged without following the regular process of setection. No regular pay scale was granted to the petftioner and he was continued on daily rate basfe. Further, appointment ofthe petitioner vras illegal and contrary to the government instructions. It is ateo submitted that no daily wage appointment could be made after 31-12-1988 in view of ban imposed by the Govt. These instructions were followed in govemment circular dated 15-09-19^ and Directorate's letter dated 23-03-1991 as there was comptete ban. As engagement of the petitioner was dehore rules and in viotation of prescribed procedure, back-door entry in servfce, therefore, no right accrues to the petitfoner and the order of termination does not suflter from any itlegality. It has also been denied that any ?n engaged after the petitfoner in the same capacity have been retained in service. (5) From the pteadings and material placed on record by the parties, it is ctear that the petittoner's appointment on daily wage basis on coltector rate was without following due process of regular recruttment and the constitutfonal procedure as ateo there was ban on such appointments. Respondents have clearly stated that petitioner's appointment was a back-door entry. Petitfoner has failed to demonstrate that his appointment was against a vacant regular post after regular setection following statutory recruitment rutes. (6) In view of the settted law of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, ^ogemment of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, »8)5 SCC 241 and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1, petitioner is not entitted for regularization nor a directfon can be issued bythis Court. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned action of termination of servfce of the petitioner. s-'l F ii'r &••'. "~~ ^' C7) Petitfon is therefore dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. Sd/- Manindra MohanShrivastavaJ Judge i i iM-