W8a!y y 'v^- •INIHE HIGH CDUfiT OF GHHAT'FXSGA®AT BILASPUR MBi PSIITIONSR/ ; ^^3^^ t^y^'py^ y^.>'' y !^y. ."' V't ^y W.P. No. 4-^65 /2004 Dal Singar S/o. Shri Indar Singar aged about 36 years, Ex-Wgtchman of the Block Wadrafnagar. R/o» Wadrafnagar, P.S. Basantpur, District Surguja (C.G.). <^-"' I^SPONDENTS VEBSU3 ^ .-?^ .<yv\ 1. T^-' Sfeate of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Gve^l^wl' D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Collector, Surguja (c.G.) Ambikapur (C.G.?. 3. Block DevelQpment Officer, Block Wadrafnaqar District Surguja (G.G.). ua Bga BSi KSK. BS' Bil aa Bfl sss PETI2ION UNDER Aft'riGLE 226/227 OF CONSTITJTION OF INDIA B^WfB'" ;\ SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE ivlR. SATiSH_K._AGN|HOTRLJ, Petitioner Res&ondents versus Dat Singar Stats of Chhattisgarh ar others Presenf : Mr. J.K.Shasiri, counsei for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for re No.1 and 2. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for respondent .3. EDER -yth (Passed on 7'" Day of December, 2006) Ths petitioner was appointed as Sweeper temporarily on 25-4-1987 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Watehman on 11-4-1989 (Annexure P-2) on temporar/ basis at CoSiector's rafe with a condition that his services can be terminated at any time without giving any notice in advance. 2. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was granted regular pay-scaie on 21-1-1994. Thereafter, the peiitioner was terminated from the service by ordsr datsd 31-5-2000 5n the ground of the petitioner being daiiy rated employee. Accordins to iearnsd counssl for the petltioner, the petitioner has been terminated on account ofthe circular dated 14-2-2000 (Annexure R1-2/3), iVhich is •^ not applicabte in case of the petitioner as the circular provides for a minute scrutiny of each case before termination. 3. Be that as it may, It is admitted position that the initia! appointment of the petitioner was temporary in vioiation of the constitutional scheme of the employment. Jbs appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law by inviting appiications from aii the e'igible candidates. As such, the appolntment of the petitioner has no iegai sanction. 4. !t is wei! settled principie of iaw as hsld by the Supreme Court in catena of dscisions thst an employee, whose appointment does not have a legai sanction, has no right to the post and cannot ciaim absorption, continuation, regularisation or reinstatement to the seroice. 5. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of M.P. and others vs. Yogesh Chandra Dubey and others , has cieariy heid thai regularisation is not a mode of appointment. If any appointment is made by way of regularisatlon, the same would be a back door appointment, which does not have any isgai sanction. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ____-—-— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (2006) 8 SCC 67 E.:i::!,3li:l!l trni'Ti"nT]"ni!!