HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR PETSTiONER VRIT PETiTION WRIT PETITION No. 1337 Of 2002 Trlloki Prasad Sahu son of Lats Jaila! Sahu, Aged 33 years, resident of Purani Basti, Bandhwa Para Raipur. VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Ministry of Education, Dau Katyan Singh Bhawan, E! 2. Desh Bandhu Higher Secondary (English Medium School), Station Road, Raipur. ARTiCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ?&» r[:; i" • Kshitij Sharma, Advocate forthe petltioner. Arun Sao,Govemment Advocate for the N.N.Roy, Advocate fortherespondent No. 2 (Passed on 05thdayof March, 2009) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finaiiy. 2. The petitioner was appointed by order dated Nil (Annexure P/2) with effect from 23.06.i994 pureiy on temporary basis on contract as Mathematics Teacher. The order cieariy indicates that "The employment is pure'y temporary and contractual and !iat in iieu thereof by." Th< empioyer-respondent No. 2, by impugied order dated 10.05.2002 (Annexure P/5), removed the petltioner from services en payment 's saiarv in advance. 'Thls is brougit to your notice your semces to this jnstitution is not required wth effect from 10th May| You wii! be paid one month's salaiy in advance. Please hand over all the books and articlesif any under your charge to the office and take the ciearance before the fina! settlement Qf accounts. Please acknowiedge the receipt ofthe letter." t 'l 3. Law is well-settled that ifthe appointment is not in accordance with applications from ali eligible candidates throu^i proper seiectlon, has no right to the post, continuation or decisions, has categorica!Iy held that appointment on daily wages, contract and temporasy, if not in accordance with iaw and dehors appointment. The pet'rtioner has not acquired any righl appointment was not in accordance with the :!tioner has no3 righl to the post, remoya! of the petltioner from the post cannot be heid v. Uma Vs. il or vitiated. (See Secretary, Stste Devf' (3) ami oViers1, !nd!an Drugs tonen, indian Dmgs & Pharmaceuticais Llquidator Vs. Dayanand and offiers3). in view of the foregoing, the petitton has no substance and is accordinglydismissed. Accordingly, M(W)P No. 544/2002, for grant of ad-interim writ, also stands dismlssed. Sd/- Satish K. Aghihotri Judge • (2UU6) 4 iSUU 1 22007(i)SCC408 3(2008)i05cci