2 r" ^r'^s^^. o-0 IN THE HON'BL&HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR. W.P(SLNo. KP^ OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS :1) ^ ..-•" ^ffy. ^^ ^^". ..••^." /' .^ ^.^" <f~ ^y' •"5^.:^ ,:2) :3) :4) Phoolchand, S/o. Baisakhu, aged about 33 years, R/o. ViUage Junwani, TahsU and District Raigarh (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Gramodyog Hafhkargha Evam Resham Dau Kalyan Singh Bhavan^ Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Director/Head of Department, Grainodyog Hathkargha Evam Resham, Sonakhan Bhawan, Ringh Road Raipur (G.G.) Deputy Director, Grainodyog Hathkargha Evam Resham (Resham Cell) Urdana, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) Field Officer, Shaskiya Resham Beej Kendra, P-2 Bangursiya, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDEJ?_ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner niost respectfully begs to subniit as under :- (1) PARTICULRS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned in the cause title. <-.' •^-^r (2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As inentioned in the cause title. ^5:3 ^v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2303 of 2011 Phoolchand. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^26 QF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA SB: Hpn'Ue Shn Satish K. Agnihotri,J. Present: Shri Vipin Punjabi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govemment Advocate for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 3. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 02"d day ofMay, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioner in services. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner was appointed on contingency. basis in the year 1989 as unskilled labour. Shri Punjabi' fiirther submits that the petitioner made various representations to the respondent authorities for regularization ofhis services but no action was taken on his representation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner sent a legal notice through the counsel on 11.02.2010 mentioning the above facts. In reply, the respondent No. 2 has stated that as per the directions issued by the State Govemment vide letter dated 05.03.2008, only those employees were to be regularized who were appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and in between the period from 01.01.1989 to 3112.1997. Thus, the case ofthe petitioner carmot be considered. 3. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and dociiments appended thereto. 4. - It is an admitted position that the appointment of the petitioner is on contingency basis.. The petitioner has further not produced any '5/ .r Amit document to show that his appointment was in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment i.e. afi.er inviting applications from all the eligible candidates by way of advertisement, or otherwise and thereafter, the petitioner was selected after proper competition. Thus, the initial appointment of the petitioner itselfwas bad. It is a trite law that a temporary, ad hoc employee/daily wager or contract appointee cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and the same was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others and State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others). Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No orderasto costs. 1 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri ' (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2007) 1 SCC 408 'l(2008) 10 SCC 1 "(2009)9^CC514 lb3H