4 0^^^_ ^ Singie Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S} N0. / f 7H / OF 2008 PETITIQNER larendra Deshmukh Son of Panch Ram Deshmukh, aged about 40 '^..•^^A..*-* years/Resident ofVJlIage and Post 7^'^ ^Q-^'""^ Nikum, Tahsil and District Durg ^^r^-\ ^ ^^.&•••"" RESPONDENTS 1. 2'. g^ VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Technical Education and Man Power and Planning, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The Djrector, Employment and Training Chhattisgarh, Near Women Polytechnic College, Byron Bazar, Raipur (C.G.). The Joint Director (Training), Industrial Training Institute, New Shantinagar, Gali No.4, Raipur (C.G.). ^f 4. The Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). / 3. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA :s- I:! fiIt m- '¥: ;1;:' 'f. w^1 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH :BILASPUR WRJT PETITION (S) N0.4949 OF 2008 PETITIONER Narendra Deshmukh RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. 1. 2. ORDER (ORAL) (Pgssed on this 4th day of April, 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks continuation on the post of Training Officer Grade-111 on the basis of appointment order dated 22/02/2007 (Annexure P/9). 3. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis on the post of Training Officer Grade-111 by Director Employment and Training, Chhattisgarh for a period of one year. Clause 5 ofthe appointment order provides for re-appointment on contract basis with regard to performance. 4. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, performance of the petitioner was quite satisfactory, as no remarks was passed against the petitioner and no notice was issued to him. However, the petitioner has been denied benefit of clause 5 of the appointment order by not re-appointing him on completion of one year again on contract basis on the above-stated post. 5. On theother hand, Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submits that clause 5 of the appointment order does no confer any right on the petitioner. It is an enabling provision that employer, on finding the work satisfactory or otherwise, may ^ ffi:?i 21. itt !as m^- .t;: ^w »1 llfc re-appoint the petitioner. Clause 5 does not provide for continuation of service, but for re-appointment. 6. Having considered rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, perusal of pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is indisputable that the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis on the post of Training Officer Grade-111 for a period of one year. Clause 5 of the appointment order dated 22/02/2007 (Annexure P/9) does not provide for continuation of service, but for re-appointment. It was for the employer to reappoint the petitioner or not. This is not a case of continuation, wherein some right has arisen in hisfavour. 7. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that a contract employee cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary for a fixed period and also not in accordance with law and the same was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd2, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others3 and State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others4). 8. Applying the wellsettled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, there is no merit in the case. Thus, the petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^ Arun i. l!iilB 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2007)1 SCC408 3 (2008)108cci 4 (2009)98cc 514