HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. N0. 5477 o’f 1998 Petitioner G. Krishnan Kutty, son of Shri Govind, aged abcut — 50 years, Eiectrician, Division -— 1. M. P. Housing Board. Durg (M.P.) r/o — R49, MP. Board Padnabhpur, P.O. -— Durg (MP) z Versu3 Respondents 1. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhaih‘sgafh) through Secretary. Housing & Urban Development. New Secretariat. Bhopai (MR). 2. Housing Commissioner‘ M.P.Housing Board Pawavas Bhawan Bhopal (M P) 3. Executive Engineer, givisicn — 1,. MP Housing Board. New Bus Stand. PD. Durg (MR) WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE éOSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri s .ri s. K. Thomas, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smitha Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the responelent No.1. None for the respondents No. 2 and 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 9‘“ day of July, mos) 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks a direction to quash the order dated 15.9.1998 (Annexure C), whereby the petitioner was not regularized on the ground that he has not obtained two years l.T.l. training certificate. The petitioner further seeks a writ directing the respondents to reguiarize the service of the petitioner and grant regular scale with consequential benefits wet. 5.10.1974. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on the post of Electrician for two months training ( 3T Til? i;n WW 25m 2E, W ). Tho petitioner continued. thereafter, and retired \.\ / / / @ / / 1 from service on attaining the age of 60 years on 31 3.2008. The petitioner made a representation on 27.7.1 998 to’ the respondents for regularization of his service. The Chief Administrative Officer, Madhya Pradesh Housing Beard. Bhopai vide impugned order dated 15.9.1998 (Annexure C) rejected the application cf the petitioner on the ground that to consider his case for reguiarization, the possession of two years' LT.I. training oertihcate is imperative. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashing of the said order. . Shri S. K. Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on ‘probation’ not on ‘training‘ for a period of two months. since the petitioner was a work-charged employee he ought to have been regularized after a period of 15 years. He relies on a decision of this Court in the matter of Govind 8. others Vs. State of C.G. a others‘. it is further submitted that since no order was passed after compietion of the probation period the petitioner deemed to have been regularized and accordingly the reguiar pay scale shouid be granted since 5.10.1974. Per contra. Smt. Smiths Ghai, teamed Panei Lawyer appearing for the respondent Not/State of Chhattisgarh submits that the petitioner has no right to the post, as the appointment order itself indicates that the appointment was for two months, for training. it is weil settled that a person appointed on the post on temporary basis has no right to the post or continuation on the post. The chaiienge of the petitioner to the letter dated 15.9.1993 (Annexure C) has no basis. as the required quaiifrcation for regularization was two years' i.T.i. training certificate, which admittedly, the petitioner does not possess, even today. i have heard teamed counsei appearing for the parties and perused the Ul documents appended thereto. {2007 (2) c.G.L..r. 29} I i . § 6. {t is evident that the petitioner does not possess two years’ LTJ. training certificate, as admitted by learned counset appearing for the petitioner, which was the precondition for reguiarization of services. Thus, on this count aione the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. On other issue, whether the petitioner was appointed for 'training‘ or on ‘probation' it does not make any difference, as the Court cannot direct regularization of an employee: who has no requisite quaiifrcation. Even otherwise, the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis, for two months only. The continuation, thereaner, does not confer any right to the petitioner for regularization on the post. 8. Hon’bie the Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Petroieum Gorporation Ltd. Vs. Ashok Rangaba Amhrez has explained the difference between regular appointment, regularization and permanent. as under:- "19. ln our opinion, the High Court was in clear error in equating reinstatement of employee in sewice in earlier proceedings with contirmation and granting status of permanency. Continuation in or reguiarization of service of an employee and extending the bene it of contirmation or making him permanent are two different concepts. Before more than four decades, in State of Mysore v. $.V. Narayanappa’ setting aside the order passed by the High Court. of Mysore, this Court observed that the High Court erroneously proceeded on an assumption that “regularization" meant H permanence”. The Court stated that regularization wouid not mean that the appointment would have to be considered as permanent. 2C. Again,— in B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Kamahkaz orders were passed by the State Government promoting certain ofncers as Assistant Engineers "on a regular basis“. It was argued that the reguiarization of 3 r (zoos) 2 soc 717} \ T @ the promotion gave §t the colouf of pefmanence and the appointments of the piomotees as Assistant Enginees’s must, therefore. be deemed to have been made substantivew. The Court held that the words “reguiaf' or “regmarization” do not connete "permanence“. They we tefms caicuiated te condone any procedure! hregutari‘ées and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to the methodology followed ln making the appointmente and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments." . The retiance of the petitioner on the iudgment and order passed by this Court in the matter of Govind (supra) is not relevant here, as this Court was considering the provisions of Rule 2(o) of the Chhattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Ruies, 1979. Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 and Fundamental Rute 56: in that matter. The petitioner has faiied to establish that the Pension Rules, 1979 or Adhiniyam. 1987 are applicable to the employees of the Housing Board aiso. Rules under consideration in the matter oi Gavind {supra}, was with regard to oangmen working in the Puhiic Works Department. Thus, the said decision is not appiioabie to the facts of the oase. 10.The status of the regular appointment does not make even otherwise permanent. ln the facts of the present case no writ can be issued directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner, dehors the required quaiiiication. 11.Thus this petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Mia, dl- l / l s l ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri l Judge Thekur