^ HIGH COURT OFCHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 25 of 2008 APPELLANTS PET1TIONERS Versus RESPONDENTS 1 4 ^lyan Singh Nagesh S/o - Shayam Lal, aged about 28 years, R/o Gram Panchayat - Ratga, Janpad Panchayat - Marwahi, Distrtet- Bilaspur (C.G.) Uday Singh Maravi, S/o - Jablu Singh, aged about 30 years, R/o - Gram Panchayat - Salhekota, Janpad Panchayat - Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Employment Guarantee Council, Vikas Ayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Line.Raipur (C.G.) Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Rurai Development, New Delhi. District Programme Coordinator (Collector) under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat, Marwahi, Through the Chief Executive OfTicer, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Zila Panchayat Bilaspur, Through the Chief Executive Officer, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) <36 WRrT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHt RULES. 2006 Present: Shri F.S. Khare, iearned counsel forlhe appellants. Shri WS Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. Shri R Pradhan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. JUDGMENT (12m May, 2009) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No.01/2009, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. . 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufllcient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) IA.No.. 01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learnedcounsel for the parties are heard on admission. 5) The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 21.07.2008, passed in W.P.S. No.02/2008. 6) The appellants/ petitioners were seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue on the postof 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for one more year. t\ ?(SE- 7) The petitioners were appointed as 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' on contractual basis for a period of one year. In the year 2008, the respondents initiated recruitment process for the post of 'Gram RojgarSahayak'. The petitioners participated in the said selection process. Inspite of grant of weightage of ten marks on account of their past experience on the said post, none of the appellants could be selected on a comparative merit of the candidates who participated in the selection process. The petitioners, thereafter, filed writ petition seeking their continuance on the said post. 8) The learned Single Judge considering that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for a limited period and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, held that the petitioners had no right to claim their continuance on the said post and therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 21.07.2008. 9) Shri F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the appeliants vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the appellants' writ petition following the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (supra) as the said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. . ^ 10) Admittedly, the appellants/petitioners were appointed on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for a limited period of one year on eontract basis. The Apex Court in the case of State of r '^^- g^ X Kamataka & others v. Umadevi (supra) has categorically held in para 47 that a person appointed on contractual basis for a limited period cannot claim hiscontinuance on the said post after expiry of the contract period as a matter of right. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim their continuance on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' as of right. 11) We, therefore.do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the appellants' writ petition was dismissed. 12) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice subbu Sd/- SUNILKUMAR SINHA Judge v^