^'^'fy'S19sr- :"5||iii IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIGATURE'AT JABALPUR (M.P.) Writ Petltion NoL1 & I-~-3 / 2000 PETITIOHER RESPONDENTS 1. Santosh Kumar Nishad, S/o. Sukhiram Nishad, aged about 32 years, Occupation Service, R/o. Hirapur, Vir Savarkar Nagar, Quarter No. 1243, Raipur, Distnct Raipur (M.P.) VE RS U S M.P. Housing Board, through Commissioner, Paryavas Bhawan, Bhopal 2. Executive Englneer, M.P. Housing Board Raipur, Dist. Raipur (M.P.) 3. Assistant Engineer, M.P. Housing Board, Sub-Divislon No.2, Hirapur, Raipur, Distrlct Raipur (M.P.) PETITION UNDER ARTS. 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS. DIRECTION CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION OR THE IIKE ETC. f ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. WRIT PETITION N0.4803 OF 2000 Petitioner Respondents Santosh Kumar Nishad versus M.P. Housing Board and others Present : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava with Mr. Indrasen Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Patel, counsel for the respondents. ORDER st (Passed on 1B ofSeptember, 2006) Services ofthe petitioner were engaged on daily wages basis as muster roll employee on 3-4-1988. His services were discontinued by order dated 25-7-2000 (Annexure P-2) on the basis of mstructions issued by the Govemment. The petitioner filed this petition impugning the termination order dated 25-7-2000 (Annexure P-2). The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, while issuing notice on 24-8-2000, directed to maintam status quo with regard to the services ofthe petitioner. It is evident that on the -2-- jay ofpassing ofthe order, 1,9,, 24-8-2000, thc petitioner wag not in service. His services stood temiinated on 25-7-2000 itself. The appointment of the petitioner was not as per the constitutional scheme nor in accordance with law. Thus, in the light of the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Secretary, State ofKamataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) cmd ofhers aod in Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union vs. M'ineral Exphration Corporation Limited and wiothei'', the petitioner has no right to reappointment, reinstatement, absorption, etc. 2. For the reasons above-stated, this petition is dismissed. No order as fo costs. Sd;- Satish K. Asnihotri Judge 1 (2006) 4 SCC I 2 JT 2006 (7)8d51 Gopal