~s^.i j^r^rr-'' fc/,'.; :U -I Q f M M h> "3 t. f'•.'• ' t: ^ it^ '^ 1. Ife^ 'es f- s^ ^ 3 ''^'s,, '•fS.^ ^ ' M BO » 111 <B <* HliB" CT a >*^w(-< <g D S @ VI. I g Hw / c.,--.: y—^.^.. ^. "\ < OB f ®.i" a>-» H- ^w aax! >a u 0 * *0 ua" SrS<- ^ y'l Q. r »a 11 w s § SA> CT >' i <! o^ g x> p) tll) ^ fi &0 ^a. i-i w» » Kl-HC-n •-<il<.(lci<t, a^OTS, fadiuy S^^I feR;SIlt^T STqWgfel iigl^l?:^:^;.. li<""'" "";^~- < /"-., s_ %. tol CP^....5:.!..^^^3. "200 05-07-200i coutusel Stui Yogesli Paadey, Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr.| Agrawal, counsel for responde^t Shri Arun Sao, Dy. Gdp/t Agrawal, Pauel Lawyer for fhe Heard leamed counsel fob- This petition was filed Constitution of India on 21 piayer : for the peutioner. Advocate with SIui Pankaj No.l. Advocate aad Shri Akhil itate/respondent No.2. the parties. (uider Article 226/227 of fhe p-12-1993 seeking following "It is, therefore, p4 Court be pkasec^ mandmnus dlrectir^g (I) not to hold fhe the said post of Aj or (o select fhe pefi up the post ffll the c (2) to direct the consider the petitio^ qf Ayurved Medicdjt may rwt be fiUed heen corvsideredfoi (3) ani/ other writ, the court rwxy deerr The facts in nutsheU fox fhat fhe petitioner was appoiuti tiSfe^^Rsre ^sif^nan^t ayed thcct fhe Hon'ble to z'ssue a writ of the respondent jaid interview for filUnc] )f A^/urved Medica! Officer ^on and aJso not to fiH ^edsion of the petition; respondeni No. 1 to ter's ncanefor the post Officer and the post till the petitioner had the saidpost; \rder or direction which \fit may granted." adjudication of the case are ^d on ad hoc basic as Ayurved [•^^fg^ y?-HP-"'7- .^^J.'A.Jt.^--^^^ •3^^iTqE?R, ^^T[I®,!««1i«1< laiica-^SI.aBffiSil^®2 '• s-i^V. 'B-* TOfelN •(litRft 4'f3^t ^f^R contilo.ued responijLents Medical OfBcerby the Coininis^i Raipur on 20-2-1984. He Shri Pandey, leamed conlends fhat the petitioner b^ on the service and the other Ayurved Medical Officer Shri Agreiwal, leamed respondent No.l subinits that) select and appoint Ayurved in accordance with fhe provisiotis In fhe case of State ol ob ioner, Municipal Corporation, to work tiU 23-8-1985. counsel for the petitioner considered for continuation should not appoiut aay lus post. eiuor counsel appearing for respondent No.l iQtends to Officer on regular basis oflaw. BtiTHana and Others vs. Mejdical repor|ted PUira Sinah and Others Supreine Court whfle consu hoc/contract einployees has hej °46. Secondly, an. employee should arwther ad hoc or nwst be replaced selected employee. aroid arbitrary acd uppoinliruj uuthorih Leamed counsel for resp< case of the petitioner wiu also eUgible otherwise in accordancf in (1992) 4 SCC 118, the Lering regularization of ad d as uuder ; \ad hoc or temporanf ffwt be replaced by i^fnporanf ernployee; he only by a regular This is necessary to ipn on ihe part of ihe Indent No.l submits ftiat the Ibe considered if he is fouxtd with lawwhen the selection XI-HC-22 -^ uowrt .•.-:-^ri^—isf p!,'3^t;OTs, 't'R'ray ^.f. 5-1^^ ^pfeqtT "WRff •? fel3t'SN^R ^73lNt!3H^T 311^1^1 is^f: yE^Ti^ yf^? is .inade for appointment on Officer on reglilar basis. The petitioner has no respondent No.l to appoiut regular basis in place of petitioner. In view of the above tae petition is disinissed wify No. 1 wfll consider fhe niakiug selection for Medical Officer on regular basi order as to costs. rifeht stdted appUcatit>n appotutitient fhe post of Ayiuved Medical to chaUenge the action of Ayurved Medical OfBcer on d hoc appointinent of ttie facts and circumstaaces, a direction fhat respondent of the petitioner also, while on the post of Ayurved in accordauce wifh law. No SdA",. satish K. Agnihotri Judge