ll‘ \lB) IN TI-E HIGH E30URT OF JUDICA’I‘URE M :“JABALP . w.P.No. 33%?) OF 1995. I f 1.Ramanuj Shanna. aged 36 years.$on of Ward mus, Mahbalta. Bemetara Ditrict? D U R G . 2.Bharat Singh Verma, aged about 28 years Son of Shri Bisoha Verma, Resident of Village Bhaisa, Tahsil Bemetara Distt. D U R G. PETIT IONERS S Shr‘i Muhnr§lal Shanna, Resident of s Versus. : Janpad Panchayat, Bemetara District Burg, through its Chief Executive Officer. Janpad Panchayat, Bemetara DURG. RESPONDENT PETITION UNDER AM‘ICLE-226 OF THE COmTZEl’UTION OF INDIA. .. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3393 of 1995 Petitioners Ram anuj Sharma &. another Vtrsus Respondent Janpad Panchayat, Bemetara WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Arvind Dubey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P. K. Bhadun', Panel Lawyer for the State. None for the respondent. \r onnEnwmn (Passed on this 1 1*11 day of March, 20 10) Heard. The petitioners, by this petition, seek a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue on the post of Shiksha Karmi and regularize their services with all consequential benents and to quash the advertisement, published on 24th August, 1995 (Annexure P/ 3). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi by order dated 10.2.1995 (Annexure P] 2), passed by the Chief Executive Officer. Janpad Panchayat, Bemetera, District Durg, on temporary basis for the academic session 1994-95. Although the petitioners have discharged their duties with full satisfaction to all concerned, even then an advertisement was issued for appointment of Shiksha Karmi in various schools run by the Janpad Panchayat, Bemetera. The advertisement was published in daily newspaper Navbharat on 24.8.1995 (Annexure P/ 3). It is further contended that the action of the respondents/ authorities is arbitrary, irrational and contiary to law in issuing advertisement to f1]l up the posts on which the petitioners were already discharging their duties. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is \ \ “1/ Evident that the petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis for one academic session. Thereafter, the petitioners were never engaged in service. The advertisement was issued bay back in the year 1995. By the interim order passed by this Court on 14. 11. 1995 the respondent was permitted to continue with the process of selection, however, it was directed no appointments should be made to the selected persons. Despite service of notice none appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the respondent. After a period of about more than 14 years it is not necessary to examine the legality and validity of the action of the respondents. Admittedly, the engagement of the petitioners was purely on temporary basis for one academic session i.e. 1994—95. The petitioners were never appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. Thus, the petitioners have no legal right to reinstatement and regularization of their services. The nature of appointment of the petitioners was purely on temporary basis and the same was not done in accordance with rules and as such the petitioners do not acquire any right to the post. It is well settled principle of law by a catena of decisions that the employee appointed de-hors the constitutional scheme of employment and not in accordance with law, has no right to continuation, reinstatement or regularization in service. This is also not the case of the petitioners that they were legally appointed, in accordance with law. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and othersl, Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others2 ). Thus the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, as claimed in this petition. For the reasons afore—stated, I do not iind any merit in this writ petition, which deserves to be and is dismissed accordingly. No order asto costs. / Sd/< SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge Thakur 1 2006 (4) scc 1 2 2008 (10) soc 1