/ $l§£§LE 3am! $43 \56L_ I ~ WRIT PETlTl0N(S)No. é$9l - OF 2010 N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SERVICE/TERMINATION MATTER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND/0R A c UITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN IHE MATTER I PETITIONER : / Hanshchandra Sahu S/o Shn Dwanka Prasad Sahu aged aboutw30 years,. Occupanon — Gram Rojgar Sahayak, Resident of Village — Pawni, Block — Biiaigarh,. District — Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS /1. V State ofChhattisgarh,Throughthe ' Collector, Baioda Bazar, District — Raipur . 4 '(Chhattisgarh) /2. The Additionai Coiiector, (Chhattisgarh) ,3, / Janpad The Chief Executive Ofhcer, ' Panchayat' Biiaigarh, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) DETAILS OF THE PETITION Raipur PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONEREE As mehtioned aboVe in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDEMJ§ As stated in th‘e above cause title. i l i S HIGH ‘ URT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.6792 OF 2010 (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Slngle Bench Hon ble Shn Satish K Agnlhotrl J , Present :- Shri Sandeep Dubey‘Advocate forthe oetitioner Shrl A'V Srldhar Panel Lawyerforthe St?te ORDER ORAL) (Passed on thus 10m day of February, 2011) ' Heard learned counsel for the parties By this petItIoVn, the petitioner seeks to challenge the fegality and validityiof the garder dated 7-6-2010 (Annexure — PH) passed by the respqn‘dent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the service and the order dated 11—10-2010 (Annexure — P/2) espondent No.2 whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his removal-has also been dismissed. Learned eounsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appomted on the post of ROJgar Sahayak by order dated 15 5 2007* (Annexure — P/3) for a period of one year on contract baSIs. Thereafter, his sen/Ices were extended from time to trme. ‘On 13-5-2010 (Annexure — P/4) a notice was issued by the r . respondent No.3 for certain financial irregularities committed by the directed the petitioner to submit his response Within 24 hours After receipt oflthe said notice the petitioner submitted his response on' 15-5-2010 by denying the allegations ieveled against him According to the petitioner the explanation offered by him has not 'been accepted by the respondent authprities on the ground that the l petitioneri has submitted the explanation beyond 24 hours y ’391 aintaining the accounts of the Gram Panchayat and petitioner in r PETITlONERi 4 Harishchandra Sahu Versus ‘ RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh Others Subséquentlii’by order dated 7&6—2010 (Annexure —— Pm) th petitioner hasbeen removed from ,the service on the ground of regiular absen e of the petitioner from the weekly meetings‘ Béing aggrie ed by the order dated 7-6—2010, the petitioner preferred an ppeal before the respondent No 2 The same has bden dismissed by the respondent No2 vrde order dated I 11 10 2010 (Annexure -— P/2) by maintaining the order dated 7 6 2010 Shn Dubey submits that the respondent authorities have passed the impugned removai order wrthout apprematrng the reply submitted by the petitionert In fact, the petitioner has not committed an financial irré‘gularities. It is the responsibility of the Sa’rpanch and‘the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to maintain the accounts andrdisburse the amount to the ilabourers, who worked under the ROjgar Guarantee Scheme. The impugned removal , order is a stigmatic order and wrll affect the future servrce careerrof the petitioner Thus this petition While passmg the order dated 11 10 2010 (Annexure — P/2) the v appellate authority found that the petitioner was not present in the weekly meet gs of the Gram Panchayat and even the petitioner ly maintained the accounts of the Gram Panchayat. The §paymenthas not been made to the labourers under the scheme namely; Mahatma Gandhi 'Rastriya Gramin Rojgar l Guarantee Yoj’anafwell within the stipulated period. The order passed by the appellate authority is just, proper and does not i y, warrant any interference the documents it is found that the petitioner was appoiinted o 15-5-2007 for one year on contract ba5is wherein, it a On perusal i was ’provide hat further extensip/h‘can be granted on the basis of l ‘ ‘qualiification, ’working capacitypVCOnduct, etc. of the contract t. i i i e é appointee. ln‘this case, ‘it_ appears that looking to the aforesaid finaneial irreggilarities committed by the petitioner further extension has not been granted Though the petitiJner contended In the petition that his serVIces were extended from time to time, but no , document In support of hrs contention has bien filed Even during thercourse of hearing also learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has failed to prOVide the details of exten3ion of the serVices of the petitioner The alleged show cause notice dated 13—5-2010 was not for removal from serVice but taking police action against the petitioner The impugned order dated 7-6-2010 does not seem to have been passed pursuant to the notice dated 13-5 2010 The Additional Collector in appeal has conSidered the entire issue at length. lt is Ewell-nigh established that the High Court in exercise ofr‘its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article ‘ 226 L and superVisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia should refrain itself from interfering wrth the order passed by the Courts below except in such cases where perverSity, illegality irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which ’ are nOt a‘vailable in the presentcase. Be that ais it may, it is a trite law that a contract apporntee cannot claim regularization continuance or reinstatement in servrce on the ba5is of apporntment which was temporary for a fixed period and also not in accordance wrth law and the same was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment (See Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others vs Umadew (3) and Others Indian Drugs & harmaceuticals Ltd v Workmen Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals xxr‘!‘ ,;: P Ltd.2, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others3 and State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others4). 11. AppIyiEg the well settled principles of law to the ‘facts of the case on t hand, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. W\ M No order asto’ costs. f Satish K. Agnihotri i Judge i i l Sd/- i - i I i I 2 (2007)'1 scc 408 ‘ a (2068) 10 SCCI1 I 4 (2009) 9 SCC 514 ‘ t