IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(s) No. X?! ?> /2o1o @B.) é§i§§§§g gm. PETITIONER Shyamlal Jaiswal S/o Shri Ramdayal Jajswal, aged about 47 years, R/o Janjgir Distt.— Janjgir—Champa (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: — The Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Commissioner, Department of Women and Child Developmen, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Collector Champa, Janjgir— Distt.— Janjgir} Champa (C.G.). The District Project. Officer, Department of Women and Child Developmen, Raipur (C.G.). » i . /> WRIT FETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE K m CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :V :1 ‘ 5 (§ r. / Writ Petition (s1 No.2718lzolo pETITIONER Shyamlal Jaiswal mm RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh 65 others getition undervAi-ticle 226 of the Constitution of India ORDER POST ONg} JULY, 20 10 Sd/- \\ Manindra Mohan Shrivastgiaywr: , Judge 3 s Wtit Petition (S! No.2718[2010 Shyamlal Jaiswal Versus PETITIONER RESPONDENTS N , State of Chhattisgarh & others Petition under Article V226 cf the Constitution of India 0 R D E R (Passed on §§ .0720 10) that the gmtitionsr made a representation on 20th January, 2010 ’(Annexure P—6) for considgrah'on of his case for regulan'zation under tha policv of regulan'zation dated 5.3.2008! but till date, his case has not been considered. 2. From the averments made in the petition, it is clear that the petitioner was initially appointed as daiiy wage employee vide order dated 2.8. 1989 (Annexure P- 1). He was removed mm service vide order dated ‘ 29.12.1999 (Annexure P-2), which was assailed by Eing Original Application No. 388f2000 before the State Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur. After the abolition of the Tribunal, the case was txansferred to the High, Court and registered as W.P.(S) No. 18941 05. The aforesaid Writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 19.7.2006 (Anncxure P~3). This Court examined the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ulnadevi (supra) and recorded categorical miding that the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme, as per the dictum of the Supreme Court laid down in the case of Umadevi (supra). It is also recorded that the appointment of the petitioner was not in response to advertisement by inviting applications from all the similar situated employees and the appointment of the petitioner was without following the due procedure of law. It was further held that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law and contrary to various Circulars issued by the Government and that petitioner has no right to the post and further, no right to continue on the post. A writ appeal ‘ was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.7.2006, which ' was also dismissed vide order dated 13.2.2007 (Annexure P—4). w 3; As it has already been held by this Court that the petitioncr’s appointment was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme, peh'tioher is not enu'tled to claim regulan'zation on the strength of Government Circular dated 5.3.2008, which itself puqaorts to undertake regularization as one time measure those cases where the e appointments were ixregnlar and not illegal. It has already been held in earlier round of litigation that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal. . In the result, the petition has no men't. The same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. , ,,_ l 3 Sd/- K; k Manindra Mohan Shrivastraryarju ,_ Judge