^ .37' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2046 of2005 s PETITIONERS : 1. Mohd. Junaid Klian, aged about 31 years, S/o Sliri Ali Hussain, occupation-Teacher. 2. Rajendra Prasad Prajapati, aged about 27 yeai's, 8/0 Shri Anant Ram Prajapati, Teacher. 3. Mohd. Elias Aiisari, aged about 26 years, S/o Mohd. Islam occupation-Teacher. All R//o Hariganwa Tahsil Wadrafhagar, District Surguja (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Aadim Jati Kalyan Tatha Aiiusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, DKS Bhawaii, Raipur (CG). 2. The Collector, District Surguja (CG). 3. District Education Officer, District Surguja (CG). 4. Block Education Officer, Wadrafhagar, Surguja (CG). 5. Gram Panchayat Haringawa Throu^li Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Harmgawa Distt. Surguja (CG). (WmT PETITION LTSODER ARHCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Asnihotri^J.l Preseait : Shii D.N. Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioners. Sliri Paiikai Slmvastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. QRALQRDER (Passed on 18th day ofFebrua^, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fmally. 1. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioners submits that the petitionei's were appointed as Teachers on contract basis for a period of two years by order dated 19-7-2003 (Amiexure-P/2). It was expected that the petitioners would be considered for regular appointment on ^iving preterence. "^^; Be that as it may, since the appointment ofthe petitioners itselfwas not in accordaiice with constitutional scheme, the petitioners have no right to continue or to be regularized or fresh appointment on any basis. Thus, claim ofthe petitioners for granting appointment on the post ofTeacher is not sustainable in law. The Supreme Court, inthe matter ofSecretaiy, State ofKamataka aiid others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others observed in para 47 as under: i'<-47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a coiitractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant mles or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment beiiig temporary, casual or contractual m nature. Such a person cannot iiivoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confmned in the posl when an appointment to the post could be made oiily by fbllowmg a proper procedure for selection and in cases concemed, in consultatioii with tlie Public Sei-vice ConiiTiission. Tlierefore, the theory of legitiiiiate ejq^ectation camiot be successtlilly advanced by temporaty, contractual or casual employees. It camiot also be held that the State has held out aiiy promise while eiigaging these persons either to coiitinue them where fhey are or to make them permaiient. The State camiot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theorv cannot be invoked to seek a positive reliefofbcing made permanent in the post." In the matter of Indian Dmgs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workiiien, Iiidian Dmgs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , the Supreme Court obsen^d as under: "IN.Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily-wager to seek regularization. Regularization can oiily be done in accordance with the mles and not dehorse the mles. ..../' 35.In Surinder Singli Jamwal (Dr.) v. State ofJ&K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any right for regularization as regularization is govemed by the statutoty mles/9 12006 (4) SCC 1 2 2007 (1) SCC 408 1 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The observations made by fhe Supreme Court in the matter of Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others upheld the above referred decision in Secretary, State ofKamataka and others (supra). In respect of payment of salary, leamed counsel submits that the petitioners have not been paid any amount. Despite service ofnotice, none appears on behall of respondent No. 5. Thus, the aveiments made by the petitioners that the petitioners have not been paid salary, is to be accepted. If their payment from the date of their appointment till 10.02.2005 is not made, the petitioners are entifled to payment for the said period for which they have worked. Having regard to facts situation ofthe case aiid lookmg to the fact that since the petitioners were appointed as coiitract Teachers, the Collector, Surguja, is directed to look into the giievances ofthe petitioners, and after having considered if it is found that the petitioners have been working without payment since the date of tlieir appointment they are entitled to payment trom tlie date oftheir appointment to 10.02.2005. The payment shall be made by the respondent No. 5 within a period of six week from the date ofreceipt oforder offhe Collector. With the above direction this petition stands disposed. No order asto costs. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1629/05, application for grant of interim reliefstands disposed of Sahu Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ! (2008) 10 SCC