HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [s] NO.5361 OF 2008 Division Bench: Hon'ble 5hri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri RAL Jhanwar 5LT PETITIONERS 1.Pushkar Prasad Awas’rhi, son of Late Y.P. AwasThi, aged abou‘r 34 years, residen'r of Village and Posf Bhardakala, Tahsil Gunderdehi, DisTr‘ic’r Dur‘g (CG) 2.Rupesh Kumar Shrivasfava, son of Shri Rambhola Shrivas’rava, aged abouf 34 years, residem‘ of Shifla Nagar, Behind Vivekanond Primary School, Durg (C.G.) VS RESPONDENTS 1. STofe of Chha‘h‘isgarh, Through Secrefary, Heol‘rh Depar‘rmem‘, DKS Bhawan, Manfralaya, Raipur (Chhof‘risgor‘h). 2. Chief Medical and Heal‘fh Officer, Durg, Disfricf Durg (Chhaffisgarh) 3. District Tuberculosis Officer, burg, Disfricf Durg (Chhaf’fisgarh) Present: Mr. H.B. Agarwal, Sr'. Advocafe with Miss Rinki Tamrakar, x Advocafe for The pefifioner. General for The Sfafe/ iMr. Vinay Harif, Dy. Advocafe respondenfs. ORDER (Passed on J§TApriL 2009) The following order of The CourT was passed by Dhirendra ishra, 3':- 01. The peTiTioners by The insTanT peTiTion have prayed for following subsTanTial relief: “(i) The Hon’ble CourT may kindly be pleased To allow The peTiTion by declaring Chhaffisgarh Civil Servi’ces (ConTracT AppoinTmenT) Rules, 2004 i.e. M l Annexure P-7, as ul‘rra virus and unconsfifufional, be sTruck down and furiher advertisemen‘r Annexure P-6 be also declared iHegai, consequeM upon H and more so ac’rion'of responden‘rs in subs’ri’ru‘ring contrac‘r and temporary employee by another confracf. employee, is iHegaI, wrong and wi‘rhou‘t authorify." Grievance of The pe’ritioners, in nufshell, is That They were appoim‘ed as Lab Technicians Temporarily on contrac’r basis vide orders daied 10.11.2004 6i 24.12.2004 (Annexure P—Z & P-4) and since 'l‘hen They are continuing on The aforesaid post ’rill da‘le. Respondenf No.2 iss‘ued an advertisement dated 27.6.2008 (Annexure P-6) for recruitment and invited applications for the postof Lab Technician under the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (for short 'RNTCP’) for a fixed period of one year on contract basis, The State of Chhattisgarh has framed rules on 28.7.2004 for filling—up certain categories of posts under the State Government declared as posts to be filled—in through. contract appointments. The petitioners have completed more than'3 years & 9 x months' service and as such, they have acquired the status of quasi-permanent employees under the C.G. Government Servant (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 (for short 'Rules, 1960'). The Rules, 1960 is bad in law in view of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 as also against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Secretariat, State'of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others1. ‘ (2006) 4 st . / wé 03. Mr. Agarwal, learned Sr. Advoca’re for The pe‘rifioners vehemem‘ly argued fhaf The pefi‘h’oners have already comple‘red more fhan Three years and nine months on ’rhe Temporary posT of Lab Technician and as such fhey have aHained ’rhe siafus of quasi permanen’r service as per Rules, 1960. Responden’rs proposed ‘ro replace The peTiTioners from o‘l‘her Temporary employees which is noT permissible as held in Uma Devi's easel. The oe. Civil Services (ConTracT AppoinTmenT) Rules, 2004 (Annexure P-7) is againsT The law laid down by The Hon'ble Apex CourT in Uma Devi's case and The same is also in conTravenTion of The AcT, 1970'and as such, ulTra vires & unconsTiTuTional and The same derves To be sTru down. O4. On The oTher hand, Mr. HariT, learned DepuTy AdvocaTe General for The respondenTs-STaTe submiTs ThaT RNTCP is, a CenTral GovernmenT programme, iT is To be implemenTed aT The disTricT level wiTh The assisTance of'The DisTricT Tuberculosis ConTrol. SocieTy (DTCS) To be formed in all The RNTCP and SCC DisTricTs of The counTry, which is To be laTer on exTended To The oTher disTricTs and socieTies. The CenTral GovernmenT has already issued guidelines of Annexure R—l for The aforesaid programme. For effecTive implemenTaTion of The said programme iniTiaI appoinTmenTs were To be made eiTher on conTracTual basis or on depuTaTion from The STaTe GovernmenT & The CenTral GovernmenT for a maximum period of one year subjec’r To renewal from Time To Time. The appoinTmenT order of The peTiTioners clearly menTions ThaT The peTiTioners were appoinTed Temporarily on conTracT basis Till The appoinTmenT is made afTer due selecTion process according To The rules. The appoinTmenT order furTher menTions ThaT in case The peTiTioners' names find place in se ck The lis’r of seleded candidates, their seniority shall be maintained The petitioners have joined their services after accepting the conditions of their appointments and as per conditions of appointment order they do not have any right to the post. They have accepted the conditions with the open eyes knowing fully well that their appointment is temporary in nature on contract basis for a period till the posts are filled in accordance with the rules. Since the petitioners have been appointed under the RNTCP as per guidelines of Annexure R—l and they are not the employees of the State Government, the provisions of Rules 1960 is not applicable in the cases of the petitioners. Advertisement for recruitment of Lab Technicians has not been published in furtherance of Rules, 2004, the same has been issued as per guidelines issued by the Central Government vide Annexure‘R'-1 and therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the constitutional validity of Rules, 2004. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Indisputably the petitioners were temporarily appointed as Lab Technician under the RNTCP on contract basis at a fixed pay of Rs.5,000/- per month. Order of appointment clearly mentions that their appointment is only for a period till the appointment of candidates is made after due selection process as per rules. From the appomtment order itself it is evident that the petitioners have been appointed under a specific programme of the Central Government and their appointment is not under the Rules, 2004 and they are alsa not the employees of the State Government and therefore the argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitione’rs have acquired status of quasi permanent 06. employee as per Rules, 1960 has no substance. There is nothing on r'ecor'd ‘ro show ’rhaT appoin’rmenfs were made by The STa’re Governmen’r exercising powers under ’rhe Rules, 2004 and in frhese circumsfcmces, ’rhe pefifioners do nof have any locus sTandi ‘ro ques‘rion the consfi’rufiond validi’ry of Rules, 2004. So far as ’rhe argument advanced by learned Counsel for fhe pe‘rifioners ’rhaf The pe’ri’rioners are already working as Temporary employees on conTracT basis under The respondenTs and Therefore, Their services cannoT be replaced by oTher Temporary employees is concerned, The condiTions of appoinTmenT order of The peTiTioners clearly reveals ThaT Their a‘ppoinTmenT is Temporary on conTracT basis for a period Till appoinTmenTs are made afTer due SelecTion process as per rules. IT also envisages ThaT if The peTiTioners are alSo appoinTed afTer Their parTicipaTing in The due selecTion process.,,,Their senioriTy shall be mainTained. IT is seTTled law ThaT Temporary employees/ conTracTual employees do noT have any righT To The posT. IT is also seTTled ThaT The employees appoinTed Temporarily on conTracT basis for a specific period of Time cannoT haveany righT To conTinue on The posT. The peTiTioners having accepTed The appoinTmenT including Terms & condiTions sTipulaTed in The appoinTmenT order and joined The posT in quesTion and conTinued on The said posT for some years, They cannoT be permiTTed To Turn Their back and say ThaT Their appoinTmenTs could noT be TerminaTed on The basis of Their appoinTmenT leTTers nor They could be TreaTed as Temporary employees or on conTracT basis. 07. 08. The o’rher argumem‘ advanced by learned Senior Counsel for fhe pefifioners based on The judgmenf of Hon'ble Apex Cour’r in The ma’r‘rer‘ of Sfm‘e of Harayano Vs. Piara Singhz referred in Pord 23 To 25 of Uma Devi's case ThaT services of The peTiTioners, who were oppoinTed Temp'ororHy on conTracT basis, cannoT be replaced by oTher Temporary employees is concerned, in The admiTTed premises ThaT oppoinTmenT of The peTiTioners is under RNTCP of The CenTral GovernmenT for a fixed period, The quesTion of replacing Their services Through oTher appoinTmenTs does noT arise. ObservaTions of‘The Hon'ble Apex CourT in Para-45 in Piara Singhz hove no appiicaTion on The focTs of presenT case, as appoinTmenT- in The insTanT case is To be made for a programme on Temporary basis. 09‘ l i l l Dhirendra Mishra On The basis of aforesaid discussions, we are of The opinion ThaT The peTiTion has nosubsTonce, The same deserves To be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. No order as To cosTs.“n Sdl— R.L. Jhanwar Sci/- 1,il Judge v Judge l 2 (1992)4 scc 113