^ '-^ HIGH CWIKT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetiUon ) No. 2718 of 2007 Petitioner Respondents Latesh Jatere S/o Neresh Kumar Jatere Aged About 33 Years, R/o StaUon w@rd no.9 Near the over bridge Rajnandgaon Teh. & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Vereus 1. The Regfetrar General, Chhatttegaiti High Court, Bllaspur (C.G.) 2. The Dlsbfct and Session Judge, Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Wnt BdiUon under ArUcte 226 <rf the Con^itution of India Slngle Bench: Hon'bte Mr, Justlce SaUrii K. Agnihutri. Present; Mr. \flvek Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitloner. O RD E R (Passed on 4tl> Day <rf May, 2007} 1. By this petition, tfie petitioner seets a writ in the nature of certforari to quash the orders dated 23.08.2006 (Annexure P/l) and order dated 11.03.2003 (Annexure P/2) whereunder and whereby, the servfc» of the petltioner as daily wages 9. worts&r wss discontlnued and thereafter conflrmed by Uie appellate authority. 2. The indisixjtabte facts, In nutshell, are that the petitloner was appolnted on the post of Sweeper at CMI Court, Khairagarh, on daily wages vlde order dated 31,10.1994. Tlie peUtfoner stopped attending the offtee from 25.01.2003. The servtees of the petitioner was discontlnued vkle order dated 11.03.2003 on the ground of ateence from duty as also on tte ground that his servtees was not required. The petitfoner preferrad an appeal before the Registrar General, High Court of Oihattisgarh. Tlie Reglstrar Generat, respmdent no. 1, dismissed the appeal wlth reasoned orders. The petlttoner has frnpugned in this petttton the above-stated orders dated 23.08,2006 (Annexure P/l) and 11.03.2003 (Annexure P/2), 3. It te no tonger res-lntegra that an appoinbnent dehore the constitutional scheme of emptoyment and not in accordance with niles framed under proviso to Arttete ^ 309 of the ConsUtutton of India, is bad ab-initfo. The constltutton provhl®for equaltty of opportunBy In matters of pubtic emptoyment. The appointtnent of the petftibner "B not on the baste of open invitatton to all the eliglbte candidates and through proper setectton process, Thus, this appolntment amoimts to back door entry In the matter of publte emptoymait. 4. The Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & uUiers Vs. Umadevi (3) and olhers1, in para 44 has hetd as under:- "44. .............. It wouki not be just or fvoper to pass an oider in exeivise ofjurisdiction underArticle 226 or 32 ofthe Consti&ition or in exefcise ofpower underArtkle 142 offfie Constitution permittmg tiwse persons engaged, to be absorbed or to bf made permanent, based on their afyoinfnents or engagemenls. Complete jusffce would bejustice according to law and though it would be open to Ws Court to inould the relief, this Court would not grant a relief which would amount to perpetuating an ill^ality." 5. In the case of Secrelaty, State ofKamataka and othefs (Supra), the Supreme Court observed as under :- "45. While directing that appoinfmenls, temporary or cssual, be regularised or made permanent, Vw courts are swayed by tiie fact that tfie parson concemed has woritwl for some time and in some cases for a considerable lengtfi of time. It is not as if the person wtio accspte an ergagement either temporary or casual OT nature, is not aware cf the nature of his employment. He accepts the emphyment with open eyes. It may be true tfwt he is not in a position to bargain - not at arm's length - since he might have been searchmg /br some employment so as to eke out his livdihood and accepis whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it woukl not be appropnate to jettison the constitutional scheme af appointment and to take fhe wew that 3 person who has temporarity or casuaity got employed dwuld be directed to be conisnued permanenlty. By doing so, it will be crealing another nwde of public afvointment which is not permissible." ^ "47. When a persm entsrs a temporary employment or gets engagement as a coniractual or casual workw and the engagement is not based on a propw seledson as recognsed by ffie reksvant rules or procedure, he is aware cf the conseqt/ences of tfie appofntment being tsmporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke ie ffieory of legitimate expectation for bdng confvmed in ttie post whai an appointment to the post could be made only by foltowing a proper procedure for selec^on and in cases concem^_Jn consultation with the Pubfk Service Commission." 8. For tfie reasons stated hereinabove and as per the dida taid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entftled to reinstatement / continuation in the services. 9. Tliis petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. No orderas to costs. Sd/- Satish KAgnihotri Judge y.