^^^^^-v ...,^ ~y ^".^- ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR '^T^~"Z" WRITPETITION No.S%66/2005 PETITIONER f' •'^ w^ ^5/ . rJr?^ -^^^ ^'".^'v^'" •»">"^\'^>" ^^>-" ^" RESPONDENTS ?1\ ^' / Ashok Kumar Yadav, S/o. Shri ^* ..•t'"^..** Ram Ratan Yadav, Aged about 33 ..••"' years, R/o. Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G) VERSUS \y State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary & Ministry, Agricultural Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Joint Director, Agricultural Department, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^. Sub Divisional Officer, Agricultural Department, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). ^4. .Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Baikunthpur, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA %. ^ ' .^^\ 1i .:""^y )-v t€i --—^^ ;\A HIGH COURT OR CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.3266 OF 2QQ5 Petitioner Ashok Kumar Yadav Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarti & Others (Writ Petition under Artide 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnjhotri, J. Present:- Shri A.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER^ORAD (Passed on 11th day ofMarctt,2011) ; 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validlty of the order dated 1-11-1999 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner was removed from his services. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner wtth all back wages. 2. Learned counsel appearing fpr the petitSoner submits that the petitioner was appointed as daily wages employee qn 5-7-1996 and therefrom, he hact been worl^ng in the respondent departnnent wlth sincerity and honestly. However, all of a sudden, by order dated 1 -11 -1999, the services of the petitioner was termtnated. 3. According to the petltioner, before passing the impugned qrder, proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioneT. The impugned action of the respondent authorities is against the well settled principles of law. The impugned removat prder was pa^ed on the ground that npn-ayailability of funds. The action taken by the resppndent aythoritiesis clear violationofthe proyisions,as«nshrined under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, Thus, this petition. 4. 1 have heard learned counsel appearingfor the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. ^ Be that as it may, a temporary, ad hoc employee/daily wager cannot claim regularlzation, corrtinuance or reinstatement In service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and the same was ^e ^ors Ihe constitutional scheme of employment (See SecretQry, State of KQmatakaand Othersvs.Umadev} (3)ancl Other^.indlanOmgs & PharmoceuticQls Ud. v. Workfnen, indwn Dwgs & Pharmaceuticals Ltcf.2, Official Uquielotor v. DQyanQnd and o^@/s? and State of Puniab snd Others v. Suiyit Stngh sn<t Other^}. With regard to reguiarisation of th©employe^ workins on temporary basis; fie Supreme Coyrfr in ym^ctew <si^ra), observ^asynder^^^^ ^ y "Thus, it isjslear that adherence to ttw ryte of equality in public employment fe a- basfe 1 feature of our CohNtution ahd sirice tKe rule ; ^ of law is the core pf our Constttution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an | order uphpl<ding a yiplation of Article 14 pr in ^ ordering the overlooking of the n@ed te^ comply with the requiremerrts c^ /^^^ read with Article 16 of the Constitutk>n. z Therefore, consistent with the soheme fpr public employment, this Court white laying down the law, has necessarily to hold thaf , unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualjfied pereqns,th©samewouldnGt confer any righton the appointee." The abpye ratio laid dqwn by the 8upr©m©Covrt hs^ been reiterafed by this Court in ^s^wero KumorVerms ^Othersv. " StateofChhattigQi^&Anc^hei^^^m^d^^ 1(2006)4SCC1 , 2 2007(1)8cc 408 3(2008)10SCC1 ; *(2009)9SCC514 ; 8 WP (S) No 1743 of 2000 dtaeided an 38-4^0C© ) L-- y. The State of M.P. & others6 Againstthe order passed in , Somendra Pratep Singh (suprQ), the petitioner therein preferred a writ appeal being W.A. (PR) No. 2077/2008, which was dismissed by the DMsion Bench ofthJsCourtby orderdated 29.04.2008 affirming the orcter passed by the Sjngle Bench. Thereagainst, th©matter was taken upto the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.(C)No, 27190/2008 {SomendrQ Pratap Singhv, Stste .ofChhattisgarh & O^ers), whiGh was also dismissed by the Supreme Court affirming the view taken by this Court, vsde ite order dated 23-3-2009. 8. This Court in ^a/yay Potif v, Stote of Chhattfsgarh & /l/7o er7'.while deali^^^v^ tie State Gpyernment has regylarized spme of tt)©daHy wagers, not appoirTt^d in accordance with the constitutjonal scheme of ©mplpyment,this Cpyrt cannpt issue a positwe direction tp jegalise the iJlegal apppintment on the grpund that certain jllegal appojntments haye been legalized/regularized by the employer. ; 9. In this Gpntext, the Sypreme Coyrt, in^ v. Unionoflndia^, observed as under: I "34. It is npt a case wl^re appoinftnent was irregular. If an appointment is irTegular, Ihe ^mecan be regularised.The Court m^ rrot^^^^^^^^^^^^ take serious note of an irregularily within the meaning of the provisions of the Ad. Byt if^an appoirrtment is iltegal, rt te non est In the eye oflaw,which renders theappointment to b@ a nullity." 5W.P.(S) No.1347 of2005decided on 26-2-2008 7WP (S) No.5845 of2009 decided on 9-10-2009 8(2007)4SCC54 ?J 10. Further, ^^ & Qnother v. Suriit Sfngh & Others9. the Supreme Court reaffirmed the above ratio in the following terms: "39. We would, however, before parting make an observation that the submission of tfie learned counsel that only because some juniors have gotthe benefit, the same by tlseW cannot be a ground for extending the same benefit tb the respondents herewi. It is now well known that the equality clause contained in Article 14 should be invoked only where the 3 ; partiesaresjmilarlysituatedandwheFeorcleFs passed ih their favour are legal and not illegial. It has a positive concept" 11. Inview offoregoing.forthereasons stated hereinabove and appjying the well settled principtes of law to the facts of ftie preserrt case wherein the petitioner was appointed pupely on temporaryandQndajlywage$basi?,hejsnpter^ relief.-;;,::^ !' 1- •1 1 - ' ! ! 1 ' '11 -: •1.- - 12. For the reasons stated hereinaboye, the impugrwd oreier dated 1-11-1999, isju^,prop©rarKtdo©&ncytwa^ interference of thjs Court. 13. In the resutt, the wlfe petffipn is dismissect. No order asto coste; Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge gown 3 (2009) 9 SCC 514