HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wrlt Petition 1S! NO 4418 of 2008 Suresh Ram Yadav ’S/o Late Shri Nankl Rain Yada‘ > aged about 32 years Watchman Government HlghH Secondary School Rlngalpah Tahsrl Ralgarh Dlsnhl Ralgarh (CG). PETI! IONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Education Department Mantralaya DKS Bhawan Raipur 2 The Deputy D1rector Educatlon Dlstrlct Ralgarh (CG) 3 The Collector Ralgarh Dlstrlct Ralgarh (CG) 4 The Dlstrlct Educatlon Offrcer Dlstr1ct Ralgarh (CG) 5 The PnnCIpal Government Hlgher Secondary School Rlngalpah Dlstrlct Ralgarh (CG) (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB Hon ble Mr Satlsh K Agmhotn, J ) resent : the petitioner ' cate for the Stat Shrr Amlt Kumar Sharma Advocate for Shr1 M P S Bhatla Deputy Govt Advo ORAL ORDER Qassed on 13m day of August 2008) W1th the consent of the part1es the matter 1s taken up for hearlng finally The petltloner by thls petltlon seeks regularrzatlon of hls serv1ces on the ground that he has completed 13 years of serv1ces and as such the pet1t1oner 1s ent1tled to be regulanzed on the post The facts , 1n nutshell are that the petltloner was appomted on' 29 09 1995 (Annexure P/l) on compass1onate basrs temporarlly, wherem, 1t was clearly stated that the appomtment was purely temporary and the same may be termmated at any t1me w1th one month s notlce or one month s salary 1n lleu of one month's salary. - P e The appontme orer dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure /l) cannot be held as regular appointment, as the petitioner has no goe through any s w s 5. The distinction between temporary employee and permanent employee is well setled. Whereas a permanent employee has a right to the post, temporary employee has no right to the post. It is only a permanent employee who has a righ to continue in service ll the age of superannuation nless he is dismissed or removed after an enquiry, or s service terminated du to some other valid reason earlier). As regars a temporary employee, there is no age of superannuation because he has no righ to the ost ‘at all. Admittedly, the petitioner herein, had not been appointed y following the regular procedure and constitutional cheme of appontment and stead on compassionate grounds. There as not even vacancy on which he could be appointed, as has been held by the Supreme Co in t matter of A. Umarani Vs. Rg e S dig sp Supreme Court has clearly observed that even s appointment on compassionate ground, in our opinion, would be illegal. Even otherwise creon and abolition of posts and regularization are purely executive function, hence, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not create ost where non—exists. 6. The dicta laid do by the Supreme urt in the atter of A. Umarani (supra) has been consistently referred with apva n the matter of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharaceuticals Ltd.2, M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. Bhopal Vs. N Yad n V n td 7. Apling th above well settled principles of law to te facts of the case, wherein, the petitioner was appointed on 29.09.95 on int d 0 P t n election process along ith other similarly ituated candidates. eistrar, Cooprative ocietiesl, wherein, the appellant sought a relief ‘ rectin the reondent authorities to regularize her services. The m anuram av and Others3, Moha Mahto s. Cetral Coal Filed L. and Others". py e h ‘ 2004 (7) scc 112 220 (1) scc 408 07 (8) cc 264 07 (8) SCC 549 07 11 t a t ti (u hi is e d t p b s i in w urt he uch ati a p wn Co m prol i 3 20 s 20 1 R@ w compassionate basis temporarily, he has no right to the post. However, it is for the State Government to look into the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, if a representation is made. In View of the foreign, this petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed summarily. \ Sd/— ‘\~~‘:»\C:V‘j/ Judge i Satish K. Agnihotriv J fluid“