'SW, BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR_ (C.G.) , . „ WRIT PETITION NO^?J^ /2006 Ea PETITIONERS <??''A ^y ^/-^> ^^'...^ <^^-^ x's^^ »/-"^^:--' '^'«-.^' RESPONDENTS '<%^>'^3^-^1 --^? 1. Gurudarshan Singh, aged about ^- 36 years, son of Shri Harbhajan Singh, resident of Tulsipur, Sangam Chowk, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 2. Srat. Khairunissa, wife of Mohd. Mudassir, D/o. Ismile Noor, aged ^ about 38 years, resident of Shanti Nagar, Ward No.4, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Ku. Anita Manikpuri, daughter of ^- U.D. Manikpur, aged about 35 years, R/o Near Paras Furniture Mart, Chaukhariyapara, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - the Secretaiy, Department of ^ Urban Administration Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Municipal Corpor, Rajnandgaon, through - its Commissioner, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Thakur Pyarelal Singh Higher Secondary School Through its Principal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. S.D.M. High Secondary School, through - its Principal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) '^L^^^'-^:'-^- ..1» WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICfiES 226/227 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1A FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT / WRITS, ORDER / ORDERS, DIRECTIQN / DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE_QFMANDAMUS_y_CERTIORARY / PRQHIBITION ETG, mffltCOUBT^J&JUmCATiLaECHHAT!18GABH:B!LASPUR Sin|^e Bensh: Hon'ble Shri Satlsh K. A^aihoSri, J. r,P, . 35SX Petitionera : Gurudarahan Singh & otfiera V'crsus Respondents ; State of Chbattisgarti & otheis Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for fhe respondent No.l. None &r the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. ORDER (Passed on this 19th day ofJanaary, 2007 1. The petitioners have filed this petition for seeking quashing of the order dated 16.5.2005 (Aimexure P/ 1) whereunder the respondent No. l has considercd and decided the representetion ofthe petitioners in accordance with law, ia compUauce of the order dated 22.9.2004 (Annexure P/3) passed by this Court in W. P. No. 1334/2002. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioners submits fhat the petitioner No, 1 (Gurudarshan Singh) was appoiuted on the post of Upper Dwision Teacher (EngUsh) vide order dated 13.7.1995 for a period of89 days on a fixed pay of Rs. 1400/-, the petitioner No.2 t. KfaauTuiissa) was appointed as Teacher on 13.7,1995 for a period of89 days on a fixed pay ofRs. 1400/- aad fhe petitioner No.3 (Kii. Anite Maiukpuri} was appointed on. the post of Shiksha Karmi Giade-II on 14.10.1996 on a fixed pay ofRs. 7001- for a period oftwo mouths. He further submits that ftiereafter the petitiouei^ were continued ia service by various further appointment ordera aad their appoiatments were recominended by the school education committee but under the policy decision of the State Govenament to terminate J ^^ ^^^y fhe services of daify wagera/temporary employees, engaged after 31.12.1988, vide onder dated 27.4.2000 fhe seryices ofthe petitioners were put to an. end. 3. The contention ofleamed counsel for the petitionera is that the order impugned, passed on fhe representation is bad on account ofthe fact ttiat tfae icasons stated by the respoudeat No. 1 that the appointnient ofthe petitioners were diiring the ban period, but m. fact there was no ban when fhe appointments of fhe petitioners were made. To subsiaiitiate liis contention, fearued counsel for the petitiouer refeiTed tn t1ie orrier dated 14th Fehniaiy, 2000 (Arinexiini P/19), issued by the General Admmistration Departinent, and stated that the petitionera were workiug in education institutions which were excluded fi»m the institiitions on which ban was iaiposed for appoiatinents. 4. Be fhat as it may, the services of fhe petitioners were uever regularized and they were engaged time to time onJy for fr*'o - three moufhs on daily wages basis. 5. In view of fhe setfled position of law as enunciated by a Constitutional Bench of fhe Supreme Court in the case of Secretaay, qfKematafca and otfters 7s. Ktuuteri' which was fc-Uowed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court, viz. Acaounts s?a»o i/*^"» ^ u MunScipal Corpn.] vs. Sttate of U.P. and oiherafl aad U.P. State Koad Tra-nsport Corporatton vs. Singh5, daily rated, tempoiaiy or ad hoc appointees have no right to fhe post as their appoiatment was not in acconlance with the coustitutionat scheme of 3 .!%~^-B•ss fhe appomtment and not ia accordance with aay Rules, Regulations, as framed under the prcsviso to Article 309 of fhe Constitution of India. 6. In the present petition, appointments offhe petitioners were on. daUy wages baais on avaslabilily of work, de-hors the constifrdtioaal scheine and as such, fhe appointinents offhe petitioners came to aa end. 7, For the reasons above-stated and as per fhe dicta laid down by fhe Suprcme Court, the petitioners are not entitled for reappoiutaneiit/rcuistatement in fh.e service. 9. This petition is accordingly dismiased. No order as to costs. .i?^ottv ^yi Thakur 1 (23065 4 SCC 1 2 (2006) 7 SCC 488 3 (2006) 7 SCC 684 4 2006 AIRSCW 2497 5 20)eAIRSCyV5158