WiltP. jis,..^_ >7_- -*.-'F"t-* -.^•^A'n.^' .Oii r'iu. iviyi 01 AUUb Sadanand Pradhan S/o Ramchandra PracUian aeed about 39 years, R/'o viilage Gouriya (Bade Tenari) District Mahasaround (CG\ VERSUS 1. The State of CSAattisgarh Throu^-i the Secretary, Department ofForest, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Tfae Head ChiefConservator ofForest, Raipur (CG). 3. The ChiefConsei-vator ofForest, Raipur (CG). 4. Divisional Forest OfEcer, District Mahasamund (CG). 5. The Forest Range Officer, Basna, District Mahasamuad CCG). v ~ ~' / (myr PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) [nm'We Mr. Safish I' i!5 *-' Present Shri F.S. IChsre- Adv<x?ate fbfth^ o^titioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/res n27u' 1. The petitioiier was appomted as Security Guard ia Forest Departinent iii tlie year 1987 on dailywages basis. Tlie services of the petitioner was d'sengaged on several tinies without their beiiig eontinuatioa m service 011 (jaimvages basis. T!ie Services of the petitioaer was asain engaged on 09.09.2000, in fhe same capacity, on temporary basis. 2. By this petitioii, the petitioner seelts a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for r^giiilarization in the liglit of the cii'cular dated 09.01.1990 issued bv the M.P. Goi't. He fiirther submits that iiitder the said circular the then State of M.P. has regi'larized al! the labours workin^ on dailvwaees or ^d lioc basis 01131.12.199§. The petitioner has prefen-ed this petilio", seeking compliatice ofthe above stated circular. AJ! the decisions directing regiilarization ofthe employees appoiiited, dehore the constitution scheme of employinent and not iii aecordance with law, iaipliedly stand oveniiied, in vie\v ofthe decision of / sahu tlie Constittrtion Beneh of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Secretary, State ofKisniataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi aad others {2006 (4) SCC '}. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid dowii clear enunciation of law which was followed later 01.1 in various decisions by the Supreme Court, 4. Iu tli^ c-ase of S€'ct'etai*'s/~ Stst's ofKsnistsl'^tatid Othsi^ Vs. Usna Devi and otliers (Supra) the Siipreine Court obscrv^d as under: "Thus it is de.ar that aciherenee to the ni!e of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our consiitution and since tiie nile of law is tfae core of our Constitirtion, a court would eertainly be disabled irom passing an order uphoiding a vioiation of Article 14 or <n ordering the overiooking of the need to comply with the requirements ofArticle 14 read with Article 16 ofthe Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for pubiic employment, this Court whiie iaying down the law, has necessariiy to hold that unless the appoiiitment is in terms ofthe relevant niles aiid after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confbr s^ny right on the appointee......../' )/ !ii tli£lislit oftlie si)o^7s- ths Dss'titioisgT' cstnsiot clsiisn siiv rssiiilfii'izstio'si QE' reiustaternent in ser^ice on the b?isis of his ?ir'pointi'*1e3it whieh was teiiiporar}/ and not in accordancc 'vvith law. r). Accordixislv. the \XTit t?£'titionis (ils'siiisssd. NQ or'dsr s.sto cogts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge