f^^ w7 ^> ^ M HIGH COIIRT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WritPetitjonNo. 1674 of2000 1. Shailendra Saloman Machaiiic, aged about 35 years, S/o Late David Saloman resident of Vinoba Bhave Nagar, Iiifi'ont of Shanti Nagar School, Talisil and District Raipur (MP)(nowCG). 2. Niniial Meshram Aged about 32 years Mechanic S/o Shri Shamulal Meshram, Deyari C/ollege Colony Sokara Nala, Raipur(MP). 3. Bhagwat Das/ Helper aged about 25 years S/o Vishambhar Das Vaishiiav Chherikhedi, P.aipur MP. 4. Ku. Dhanwati^ Labour, aged 20 years, S/o Ram Saroj Yadav village Dharampur (MP). 5. Ashok Baipai, Driver, aged about 40 years S/o Shri Hemlet Bajpai, Boirdadar Fami Raigarh (MP). 6> Rakesh Mishra, Lab Techtiician^ aged about 32 years^ S/o Shri Chandra Shekliar Mislira Murjhad Fami, Waraseom, Bala^iat (MP) VERSUS 1. State of Madhya Pradesh, throu^i it Secretary Agriculture Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP). 2. Indira Gandlii Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Krisak Nagar, Raipur (MP). S.Deaii, Faculty of Agricultural Engmeering Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Krisak Nagar, Raipur (MP) 4. Scientist aiid Incharge, Regional Agricultiire Research Centre Indira Gandtii Krishi Vishwavidyalaya^ Boirdadar Raigarh(CG) (WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) fSB; Hon»bleMr. Satish K. Agiiiliotai, J.) Present : Shri H.B< Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Paiikaj Agrawal, Advocate for fhe petitioners. 81m Vmay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Alok BaklishL, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate, on behalfofShri Ramakant Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 ORALORDER (Passed on 04th ofMarch, 2008) 1. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents. 2. On pemsal of the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it appears that, the petitioners were appointed cn different posts on daily wages basis. The petitioners have not filed copies of appomtments order but copies of other relevant documeiits have been filed, wherein it is indicated that the petitioners were working as daily wagers. ^' 3, The State Govemnient^ by order dated 31.12.99 held that any appomtment made on daily wages after 01.01.89 will be held as illegal and the officers appomting daily wagers be held responsible and the payment made thereon may be recovered jfrom the officers concemed. 4. The petitioners seek qiiashiiig ofthe order dated 27.0L2000 (Amiexure P/l) and farther a direction to the respondents to regiilarize all the daily wages workers appointed since 1988. It is infomied that at that point oftime there was a circular dated 31.12.88. As per circular dated 25.09.98 wherein it was provided that all the employees appointed on daily wages basis prior to 31.12.88 sliall be considered for regiilarization. 5. Be that as it may, now with the passage oftinie, law has changed. All the decisions directmg regiilarization of the employees appomted, dehors the constitution scheme of employment and iiot in accordance with law, inipliedly stand ovemiled, in view ofthe deeision ofthe Cot^titiition Bench of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Secretary, State of Kaniataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and others . The HonUe Supreme Court has laid dowii clear enunciation of law wliich was followed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court. Some are Accounts Officer (A&I) A.P.SRTC and others Vs. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao and others , Sunder Prasad Tivvari Vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadaa Mandi Panshad and others , Nagiu- Mahapalika (now Municipal Corp.) Vs. State ofU.P. and ofhers 4 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Man Singh . 6. In the case ofSecretary, State ofKaniataka aiid othei^ Vs. Umadevi (3) and otfiers 1 (supra), fhe Supreme Court observed as und&r: "45. While directing that appomtmente, temporary or casual be regiilarized or made pemianent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concemed has worked for some time and m some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who ^ sahu accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware ofthe nature ofhis employiiient. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be tme that he is not m a {K)sition to bargaiii- not at anrfs length-since he might have been searchiiig for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But cn that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitiitional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be contimied pemianently. By going so, it will be creating another mode of public appomtment which is not penmssible. "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or get engagement as a contractiial or casiial worker and the eagagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant mles or proc^dure, he is aware oftfie consequences ofthe appointment being temporary^ casual or contractual in nature. Siich person caimot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for beiiig confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for sele^tion and m cases concemed, in consuttation withthe Public Service Commission/1 7. Iii the li^hA ofthe above^ the petitioners cannot claim any regularizatioii or reinstatement in ser^ice on the basis of their appomtmente which was temporary and not in accordance with law. 8. Accordm^y, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge