/ '^:. "I.1 3^ ^^ AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Ftetition No. 3963 of 1994 Ftetitioner Hemlal Chandrakar, S/o Shri Lokuraai Chandrakar, aged about 35 years, Occupation Service, Nakadar, Rrishi Upaj Mandi Sainiti, Mahasamund, Distt, Raipur M.P. Versus Respondents 1. Secretaiy, Krishi Upaj Mandi Saxmti Mahasamuad, District Raipur (M.P.) 2. Knshi Upaj Man.di Samiti Mahasaiiiund, through its Secretary Mahasamund, District Raipur (M.P.) 3. Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Viparan Board, through its Maoaging Director, Beej Bhawan, TeUbandha Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PErriTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shn Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate with Shri Harsh Wardhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate for tihe respondents No. 1 aDd 2. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Depuly Advocate GeneraA for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Psassed on this 22ud Day ofApril, 2009) 1. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 17.10.1994 (Annexure P/7), whereby the services of the petitioner was termiriated with iminediate efiect on the groiind that he was found gmlty iii a criminal case by fhe Judicial Magistarate F'irst Class, Mafaasamund. 2. The case of fhe petitioner is fhat he was mitiaUy appoiated as Nakedar on daUy wages ia the year 1994, His ei^sugement was extended by order dated 11.12.1985 (Annexure P/1) and 24.1.1987 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, by oixler dated 16.2.1991 (Amiexure P/3) the petitioner was appoiated as seasonal worker. For a smaU incident dated 12.7.1993, a fine of Rs. 50/ - was imposed upon fhe petitioner by order dated 13.7,1993 (Amiexure P/6), passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, in Criminal Case No.1022/1993. Thereafter, the petitioner along with ofhers filed a writ petltion, being M. P. No. 3426/93 (Jeevanlal Jojba & others Vs. Director, Krishi Upaj Maadi Samiti & ofhers), apprehenduig tiieir termination. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh by iaterim order dated 4.10.1993 (Annexure P/5) directed tihiat "if^ the petitioners arc stiU contmuing on daily wages m the services of Krishi Upaj Mandi Sacaiti Mahasaaiund, ffaeir services shall not be dispensed with until further orders,3& Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 17.10.1994 (Annexiire P/ 7) the services of fhe petitioner was termiiiated wifh munediate effect on fhe groiiad that he was found guilty in a crmiinal case by the Judicial Magistrate Pirst Class, Mahasamund. Shd Ashish Shnvastava, learned counsel appearing for fhe petitioner vehemently argued fhat when the iiiterim order dated 4.10.1993 (Annexure P/ 5) was operatiag, the impugned order dated 17,10.1994 (Annexure P/7) could not have been passed. Such action of fhe respondents, ia passiag the impugned order, terminatii^ the services of the petitioner, is iUegal, arbitrary and not sustainable ui fhe eyes of law. Learaed counsel further submits that the petitioner beiag a workmaa, his sendces could not have been terminated without followiag fhe provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. /^. (^ 6. Haviag heard learaed counsel appeanng for the parties aad having perused the documents appended thereto, it is apparent fhat the appointDient of the petitioner was on daily wages and for seasonal worky on teniporary basis. Thereafter^ Uie petitioner?s services were disengaged fix)ni 17,10.1994 (Annexure P/7) on the ground that the petitioner was found guilty for coiaiaission of a petty offence by fhe JMFC Mahasaoiund. 7. The subimssion oflearned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioiier is entitled to retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 is not sustainable, as the precondition for grant of retrcnchnieut compensation is compUaace of the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. The question, asto whether the petitloner has worked for 240 days or inore ui the precediag year, cannot be decided ia writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has not approached fhe Labour Court for determinatlon of such reUef on the basis ofworkmg. 8. Be fhat as it inay, fh.e nature of appointDient of fhe petitioner was piirely on daULy wages and seasoiial work on teniporary basis. The saaie was not in accordance with rules aiid as such tlie petitioner does not acquire any right to fhe post. It is well settled prmciple of law by a catena of decisions that the employee appoiated de-hors the constitutlonal scheme of employment and not ia accordance wifh law, has no right to contuiuation, reinstateinent or regularization iu service. This is also not the case of the petitioner that he was legatfy appoiated, m accordance with law. It is clearly established ^ (^? ^s^ that the appoiatinent of the petitioner was not in accoidance with law. 9, The Supreme Court, m the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) axid others1 observed ia para 47 as zinder: "47. When a person enters a teinporaiy enxployinent or gets engageineut as a contractual or casual worker aad the engagenient is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relcvaut rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointinent being teiaporary, casual or contractual in nature, Such a person cannot invoke the theoiy of legitimate expectation for beiog coxifiraied ia the post when an appoiataient to the post coiild be made ordy by foUowmg a propcr procedure for sclcction aad io. cases concemed, ia consultation wifhi the Public Service Coininission. Therefore, the theoiy of legitimate expectation caDiiot be successfully advanced by teinporary, contractual or casual eniployees. It caanot also be held tbat the State has held out any promise while engagiog fhese persons either ^to contiaue thexu. where they are or to niake them permanent. The State caoiiot coustitutionaUy make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be iavoked to seek a positive reUef of beii^ Biade permanent ia the post." 10. The observations made by the Supreme Court ia Offlctal Liquidatoy Vs< Dayanaad aud others2 upheld the above referred decision in Uniadevi (supra). 11, Applying fhe well setUed pnnciples oflaw, as stated above, to fhe facts of the present case, wherein fhe petitioner was appoitited on daily wages and seasonal work, purely on teniporary basis and thereafter his sendces were tenmnated, fhe petitioner has no r^ht to fhe post. 12. In view of the foregoii^g, there is no nierit ra this petition. The petition is dismissed, accordingly, __— Thakur S(V- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1 2006 (4) SCC 1 2 (2008) 10 SCC 1