^-^? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. ApDeilant Plaintiff Respondent Defendant S.A.No.78of2007 Bharat Lal Chandani, S/o Shri Nanakram Lal Chandani, aged about 44 years, R/o Sindhi Colony, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) Versus State of Chhattisgarh acting through Industrial Traming tnstitute, Koni, through Principal, I.T.1. Koni, Bilaspur (CG) Second Civil Appeal under Section 100 ofCPC Present: Shri 8.1. Ali, counsel forthe appeltant. Shri G.D. Vaswani, G.A. for the State/respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passedorr24.09;2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appellant/plaintiflf is aggrieved by Uie judgment dated 05/12/2006 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in civil appeal No.17-A/2006, whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.12.2005 passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Class-l, Bilaspur in dvil suit No.114-A/2005 was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. (3) The IInd Civjl Judge, Class-1 had, in civH suit No.114-A/2005, dismissed the plaintifrs suit for declaration that termination of his services by the respondent herein was illegal. (4) The sole ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in this appeal is that the trial Court as also the lower Appeltate Court have not considered the application dated 15.12.2005 filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the trial Court summoning the record of appointment of one Hari Ram Sahu, who was appointed as 'Shifp Anucfeshak Kanishk'. No other ground was urged. 0>/v^ -' -2 •ef^. '^ -••^ ^ r'^sai^ \,.^/ "^s^"'' -s . (5) Having heard the submissions, 1 have perused the record. Initially appointment of the plaintiff vide Ex.P-1 was purely on adhoc basis for six months. After expiry of six months he was again appointed vide Ex.P-2 on adhoc basis for six months. His services were terminable at any time without prior notice. The regularization of Hariram, a similariy placed employee did not create any legal obligation for the respondent/defendant to continue the appellant/plaintiff in service after the expiry of the period of adhoc appointment vide Ex.P-2. The said application dated 15.12.2005 was filed at the stage of final arguments. There was no propriefy in calling for the records of appointment of one Hari Ram Sahu in the case. Lower Appellate Court has considered this aspect in para-8 and held that the records sought to be requisitioned by the appellant/plaintiff were not necessary. There is no illegality in the finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court. (6) In view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below, 1 am of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for determination of this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. r 1 Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge