AW HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4695 of2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Manoj Kumar Sinha, aged about 35 years, son of stan Kamal Sinha, Resident of Basantpur, Distriet Rajnandgaon (CG). VERSUS 1. State ofC.G. through Secretary (Fisheries Department) D.K. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. State ofC.G. through Seeretary General Administration (Complaned), DK Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 3. State of C.G. through Collector, Collectorate Durg (CG). 4. State of C.G. fhrough Director (Fisheries) QfBce Telibandha, Mahasamund Road, Raipur. 5. State of CG throu^i Deputy Director (Fisheries) Near Forest Department, Opposite Panch Building, Durg (CG), 6. State of CG through Assistant, Fisheries OfBcer, Devri Region, Village Dhamdha District Durg (CG). 7. State ofMP through Secretary, Bhopal, MP. (WRTT PETmON UNDER ARHCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA) CSB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Asnlhotri. J.) Present 1. Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 18UI day ofFebruary, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, fhe matter is taken up for hearing finally. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the persons similarly situated to the petitioner have been regularized, but the petitioner has not been regularized in spite ofthe fact that he has also acquired the requisite qualification for which the petitioner has submitted several representations before the respondent authorities, but he has not received any satisfactory respoiise fromthem. Leamed counsel furfher submits that thereafter the services ofthe petitioner have been regularized with effect from 1-4-2004 by order dated 11-6-2004 (Annexure-P/18). Leamed counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to regularization ofhis services fromthe date whenthe services ofthe persons similarly situated to the petitioner have been regularized and also entitled fbr other consequential fmaneial benefrts. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. From the record it appears that earlier the petitioner was removed from fhe service and fhereafter the petitioner has been reinstated in service by order dated 19-3-2001 (Annexure-P/4) on daily wages basis, The Supreme Court, in the matter of Secretary, State of Kamataha and others Vs. Umadevi (?) and others observed in para 47 as under: "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker andthe engagement is not based on a proper selection as recogtiized by the relevant.rules or procedure, he is aware ofthe consequences ofthe appointment being temporary, casual or conlractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confumed in the post when an appointment to the ppst could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and m cases concemed, in consultation with the Publie Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitnnate expeetation camiot be suecessfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It eannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue Ifaem where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally rnake such a promise.It is also obvious fhat the theory camiot be invoked to seek a positive reliefofbeing made permanentinthe post." w "s>*~ W-^"i>, ^-€':- Sahu 4. In the matter of ludlan Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indlan Drugs & Phannaceudcals Ltd., fhe Supreme Court observed as under: "34.Ttais, it is well settled that there is no right vested iii any daily-wager to seek regularization. Regularization can only be done in accordancewith the rules and not dehorse the mles. ....." 35.In Surmder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State ofJ&K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any ri^it for regularization as regularization is goverued by fhe statutory rules." 5. The observations made hereinabovein cases (Supra), with approval, the Supreme Court in the matter ofOfBcial Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others has farther explained about the rights ofthe daily wagers and regularization. Para 70 reads as under: "70. The Shift in the Court's approach beeame more prominent in A. Umaram v. Coop. Societies, decided by a fhree-Judge Bench, wherein it was held that the State cannot invoke Article 162 ofthe Constitution for regularization ofthe appointments made in violation of the mandatory statutory provisions." 6. Appiying to the well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe case in hand, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petition is being devoid ofmerit and sans any substance. 7. In view ofthe foregoing, fhe petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. ^nihotri Judge 2007(1)SCC40S (2008)IOSCC1