r5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATISGARH) W. P. N0~7 'Q OF 2002 PETITIONERS ?.^^ ^o' .<^" z. i'u-^f--'K ssy% ^^'" ^^ •^ ^" H'^ 1. Krishna Kumar Sharma, S/o Madhav Prasad Sharma,aged aged about 37 years, R/o Vill. & Post Kishanpur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 2.Abhimanyu Patel, S/o Shri Akhilok Prasad Patel, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Bhagwanpur, P.O.Bartikalaa, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 3. Ambu Lal Shukla, S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Shukla, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Semra, Post Office - Kheir District Rewa (M.P.) 4. Pramod Kumar Sinha, S/o Umesh Prasad Sinha, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Pachira, Post OfEce Surajpur Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) VE RS U S RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner and Managing Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, Raipur (C.G) 3. The Director, Mandi Board Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samifi Through its Secretary Suraj pur, District Surguja (C.G.) /- WRIT PETITION_UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION _OF INDIA FOR_,ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERS: HiGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT giLASPUS SiNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATiSH K. AQNIHOTRI, J. WR!T PETITION N0.90 OF 2003 Krishna Kumar Sharma and others versus State of Chhattisgarh and others QBDEfi Post for ^ 1-12-2006 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^f: ^^.SL^-.^KI. U!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S1NGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRi^L '7^ P^tjtieners WRIT PET!T!ON N0.90 QF 2003 versus Krishna Kumar Sharma and others State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, counsei for the petitioners. Mr. Sushii Dubey, Government Advocate for respondent No.1. IVir. Sourabh Dangi, counsel for respondents No.2 to 4. (Passed on 8 Day of December, 2006) The petitloners v/ere appointed as Assistant Sub- inspector (Nakedar) in respondent No.4 - Mandi Samiti on daily wages basis. Sen/ices of the petitioners were discontinued by order dated 10- 7-2000 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that their appointment was not made In accordance with law. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioners fiied a writ petition, being Writ Petition No.4921 of 2000, in the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh). The High Court, by order dated 28-8-2000 (Annexure P-3), dismissed the petjtion to seek remedy in accordance with law. In the meantime, respondent No.4 - Mandi Samitl sent a ss^i^. f.''1 'I ietter dated 17-2-2001 (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.2 seeking sanction for appointment of five empioyees. Again by resolution dated 3-3-2001 (Annexure P-5), respondent No.4 - Mandi Samiti decided in Its general body meeting to make a request to the senior authorities to permit respondent No.4 - iVlandi Samiti to appoint daiiy wager employees. By a tetter dated Msrch, 2001 (Annexure P-6), the Chairman of respondent No.4 - Mandi Samiti requesSed to respondent No.2 to teke back the daily wager employees, whose sewices were discontlnued in July, 20CX) against the sanctioned posts. 3. Be that as it may, the petitioners were appointed as daily wager employees and against termination of their services they had moved the High Court of Judicature at (Madhya Pradesh) in Writ Petition No.4921 of 2000. The High Court, after considering their cases on merit, dismissed the petition granting iiberty to seek remedy in accordance with law. Admittedly, respondent No.4 - IVlandi Samiti has written to the highsr authorities Tor reappointing the petitioners, as their sen/ices were required in respondent No.4 - Mandi Samiti. 4. In view of the settled principie of law that daily rated workers appointed dehors the constitutional scheme and not in accordance v/ith law have no right to the post, this Court cannot dlrect the respondents to reappoint the petrtioners as daiiy wager employees. Hovvever, in the facts of the case, the respondents - authorities are at liberty to consider recommendations made by respondent No.4 - Mandi Samitl for appointment. 7Z- 5. With the above-stated observations, this petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sopa!