^^Bfcs^te^^^^ HI6H COURT OF MHATnSGWH AT SSSLASPW Writ Petitwn (S) NB. 1879 of 2007 Petiliflnws Respondents; /-;' Versus 1. Syed Ahmed Ali, son of Syed Shauket Ali, aged about 30 years, resident of Imanbada, Subhosh Word, Jagdalpur, District Bastor (C.6.) 2. Kumari Shabina Begum, daughter of 5hri M.A. Khan, aged about 30 years, resident of Arman Manzil, Subhosh Word, Jadgalpw District Bastar (C.6.) 3. Kumari Rabiya Khan, daughter of Shri Seikh Shahzada, qged obout 26 ye<rs, resident of besides Subhadi Ward, old Narendra Talkies Jagdalpur E>lstrict Bastar (C.6.) 1. Stote of Chhattisgarh, throu9h the Secretcry, tteparhnent of School Education, bau Kalyan Sin9h Bhawon, Raipur (C.&.) 2. TTie &it'ector, Public Xnstructions t>ep<n-tment, Directorate, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.6.) 3. Oistrict Education Officer, Jtgdalpur, Oistrict Bastw (C.6.) 4. Aryuman Islaniya Committee, through- Chairman Education Sub Ccmmittee, Jagdalpur, Oistrict Bastar (C.6.) 1 Present; Mr. Rahul Jha, Advocote for the petitioners. Ms. Deepali Pandey, Ponel La-yer for State/respondents No. 1 to 3. OROER (Passed on 2'*1 doy of April. 2007) 1. The petitioners vide order- dated 24.7.2001 (Annexure P-1) wcs appointed as Contract Teachers in Sovemment oided School on fixed pay of o ) '.Jf.-^ '^,- c. Rs. 500/- for the academic session 2001-02 i.e. from 16t11 July, 2001 to 30 April, 2002. Thereufter, petitioners continued in +he same capacity without any fresh appointment order on contract basis. 2. The ©overnmentof Chhatti^orh, School Education Depca^tment vide letter doted 17.1.2006 (Annexwe P-3) instructed the Oirector, Public Instructions to grant permission to convert noture of the contract teachers to Shiksha Karmis. 3. Learned counsel cypeoring for the petitioners sitomits that despite letter dated 17.1.2006, the respondent No. 4 has not taken ony step for grant of pay-scale of Shiksha Kormis to the petitioners who ore still working as contcact teachers. The question for cwisiderfftton wises in this case is asto whether <m emptoyee who has been appointed, not in accordance with faw cmd de-hors the constitutional scheme of employment, has right to be appointed at Shiksha Karmis in the letter dated 17.1.2006 (Amexire P-3). 4. It is well settled principle of law tiiat if the appointment is de-hors the constitutionol scheme of employment w not in accordance with lcuv, the sifcsequent regularization, continuationor gront of ht9her poy-scole does not confer any right on such empteyees. 5. Be thfft os it may, the petitioners are gronted liberty to approach the eoncerned cwthor'ity for grant of benefit under letter dated 17.1.2006, if so advised. 6. Thus, petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge &Ahosh