^ COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH DIVISION GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SUNiL KUMAR SINHA, J. AppeESants • Petitlorsers Writ Appeal No.384 of 2609 1 Dr Sanjay Dave, S/o Late Shri SH Dave, Aged about 45 years, presently posted as Medicai Officer, PHC, Khattl, CHC - Mahasamund, District Mahasamund "^' '-•! "!<' 6 8 Dr Shyam Sunder Gupta S/o Late Shri Choteisi Gupta, Aged about 43 years, presently posted as Medical Officer, PHC, Kumarpura, CHC - Janakpur district Surguja CG DR Mahendra Singh S/o Late Shri Prem Singh, Aged about 48 years, presentiy posted as Medlcal Officer, PHC, Borea Kaia, CHC - Dharsiwa, District - Ralpur (CG) Dr Sanjay Jain S/o Shri Vljay Prakash Jain, Aged about 45 years, presentiy posted as Medical Offlcer, PHC, Kadela Ka!a, District Dhamtari (CG) Dr Prashant Bais, S/o Shri Jagat Slngh Bais, Aged about 43 years, presentiy posted as Medical Officer, PHC, Gatba, CHC - Baloda, Dlstrict - Janagir ~ Champa Dr Bhagwat Rai, S/o Shri Ram Rekha Rai, Aged about 53 years, presently posted as Medicai Offtcer, PHC Jevra, CHC - Durg Dlestrict - Durg (CG) Dr Arjun Sharma, S/o Shri RP Sharma, Agsd about 52 years, presentiy posted as Medical Officer, PHG, Hathbandh, CHC - Simga, Dlstrict Raipur (CG) Dr Kamal Kishor Rai, S/o Shri Ramrekha Ra?, Aged about 41 years, Working as Dental Surgeon in \b\ ^— Respondents (Rsspondent No.1) (Respondent No.2) Government Maharani Hospital, Jagdaipur, Djstrict Bastar (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Throuah - Secretary, Department of Heaith Education DKS Bhawan, SVIantraiaya Ralpur (CG) Director Directorate of Health Education 0!d Nurses HosteS, DKS Bhaw'an, Premises, Raipur (CG) AppeaS under Section 2 (11 ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court {ApDsaj to Dsvlsion Bench) Act, 2007 Present : Shri Jitendra Pail, counsel for the appeilants. Shri shore Bhaduri, Additlonal Advocate General for the State / respondents (5m January, 2010) The foliovi/ing order of the Court v^as passed by Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) The appellants have filed this writ appeai against the impugned order dated 19.11.2009 passed In WP (3) No.6796/2009. 3) The petitioners had flied the writ pe-:ition for the folSowing reliefs: "i To klndiy cei't for the records of the case from thersspondents. I! To kindly direct the respondent State to conslder ths case of the petjtioners for reguiarizatlon %.. ^ f%^/^ ^ \-__, in terms of the paragraph 53 of the judgement of Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. iil To kindly direct the respondent State to frame a scheme for grant of age relaxation to the petitioners as being granted to the census worker, Panchayat Karmis and Shiksha Karmis in the State. iv To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitloners." 4) The petitioners, .thus, in substance were seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioners' case for reguiarization and to frame a scheme for grant of age relaxation to the petltioners. 5) The learned Single Judge on a thorough consideratlon of the submissions of learned counsei for the petitioners found that the Detitioners were not entitled to any of the reSiefs sought by them in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, of Karnataka and Others Vs Umadevi, reported in 6 SCC 310. 6) Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Medical Officers in the year 1998 on contract basis for a flxed tenure of two years. It is a dlfferent matter that the term of the petitioners' contract appointment was subsequentiy extended several times and the petitioners, as such, are stlll continuing as Medical Officers serving the State on contract basis. The petitsoners joined the services knowing well and with open eyes that their appolntment is pure and simpie on contract basis for a fixed term; In view of the dictum of the Apex Court In the case of ^ ..•^^: /^. J?;??.'../.. % :^^^i^;^B-. II v^> u. Umadevi (supra), the law now is settted that a person appolnted on 'contract basis' cannot, after the expiry ofthe t^m of contract, claim hls continuance or regularization on the said post as of right. Similarly, the appeliants, in our opinion, cannot daim age reiaxation as of right. 7) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity In the Smpugned order whereby the appe!!antsi writ petition was dismlssed by the iearned Single Judge. 8) The writ appeal, therefore, Is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma ~>