IN THE HIC3H OOURT OF. JUDIGAIURE AT JABALPUR WSIT PSIIIICK! NO".' ^ 1 OE' 1999 UNDER&RTIGLES 226/227 OE- IHE CaiNS'EITUTIOH QE INDIA. • PEIITIONERS 1. (L^' 2. 3. ^ 5. 6. 8. Ghanshyara Sala Prasad Sabu, S/o Shri Jai Singh Sabu, Aged about24 years, R/o Village Baihar, . TatTsil - Arang, District - RAIPOR 0'IP) wr^^- Ghaneshwar Sahu S/o Shri Puranik Sahu, Aged. about 28 years, R/o Village Naikbandha^ Post - Abhanpur Tahsil - Abhanpur, District - RAIPCR (MP) Deoki Oewangan S/o Shri Ram Prasad Dewangan, &ged about 27 years, R/o Dewangan Genexal Stores, Main Road, Bagbahara, District - HAHASAMUND (MP) Bhola Ram Yadav . S/o Harakh Ram Yadav, &ged about 22 years, R/o Village & posfc ; Chhuiya, Tahsil - Mahasamund Distr.i.ct - Mahasamimd (MP) Smt. Bropadi Dhruv fi/o Radhe Lal Dhruv, ~ &ged about 19 years, R/o Village & post — Mandrod, Tahsil - Kurud, District UHAMIARI (MP) Smt. Shanti Bai Kanwar ^l/o Sbri Teluram Kanwar, Aged about 21 years, R/o Village & Post Maadrod, Tahsil - Kurud, . Districfc - DHAMTARI (MP) Bhagaan Oas Ratre, S/o Ori Lal~-Ratre, &.ged about 25 years, a/o Village & Post Godi, Tahsil and Bistrict RAIPUR (MP) —~" Shiv Kumar Verma, S/o Kamta Prasad Verma, Aged about 27 years» R/o Village and Post Kunda, Tahsil - &rang, District - &AIPUR (MP) • :• -':».• * • ^ - f • • «/ • j» RBSPONDBNTS •^' v 9...Vinod Kumar Nanda S/o Ganesh Ram Handa, &ged about 23 years, -R/o Village & Post Turanga, Tabsi.l - Mahasasiund District - Mahasamund (MP) 10. Smt. Rarabha Bewan , l(/o Nakchheda Biwan, &ged about 24 years, R/o Village & Post Turanga, Tahsil - Mahasamiind Oistrict - MAHA3AMUND (MP) - VERSI3S - 1. State of Madhya Pradesh Througb the Chief SecretaEy, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, BHOP&L (MP) 2. The Seeretary, pancbayat and Social WelfareDepartnient., Government of Madhya Eradesh, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bbawan, BHOPAL 3. Ibe Secretary, School Education Bepartment, Government of M.P. Maatralaya, Vallabh Bhawan» BHOPAL (MP) 4. The Director, public Instructiais^ Madhya Pradesh, Satpura Bhawan, BHOPAL (MP) 5. The Joint Director, Piiblic Instructions, Raipur Bivision, RAIPDR (MP) 6. Janpad Panchayafc, Arang District - Raipur 'rhrougb Ghief Executive Officer. 7. Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur Bistrict Raipur (MP) Through Chief Executive cfficer 8. Janpad Panchayat, Bagbahara District - Mahasamund (MP) Througb Chief Executive Officer 9. Janpad PaHchayat, Kurud District Dhamtari TbBough Chief E'xecutive officer, 10. Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund District Mahasamiind (MF) Through Chief Exeeutive officer .. 4. . nr"l"i" :: 4 ^ttiRII PE'ri'.CIGN UNHER &RIICLES 226/227 0£* IHE CONSTIIU'riON OF INDJ& • ':~-. \y' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petitioii No. 3127 of 1999 Ghanshyam Prasad Sahu Ss others Pradesh Petitioners Versus Respondents State of Madhya Chhattisgarh) & others (now WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226Z227_OF_THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotii J.) Shri C. R. Sahu, Advocate for fhe petitioners. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the respoudents/ State. O RD E R (Orall (Passed on fhis 13th day ofJaauary, 2010) Heard. 1. The petitioners, by fhis petition, seek a direction to fhe respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners, on the posts on which they were workuig. 2. Brieffacts, in nutsheU, are that the petitioners were appointed as part-ttme Peon, as is evident froin fhe experience certi&cates (Aaaexure P-1 (E) to (Hj). No appointinent order has been field by the petitidners, iadicating their nature of appoiatinent. It is further clear froin the letter (Annexure P-1(B)) fhat fhe appouitnients of fhe petitioners were inade on part-time basis, without auy sanction or approval of fhe posts? After coinpletion of one year, it appears fhat fhe services of fhe petitioners were dispensed wifh by onler dated 30.12.1997. Thereafter, the petitiouers were never engaged in service even on part-time basis. 3. Having heard leamed couusel appearing for the petitioners aad having perused the documents appended fhereto, it is evident fhat fhe engagement of fhe petitioners was purely on / ~T-.- teiuporary basis as part time Peon. The petitioners were never appointed in accordaace with the constitutional scherue of eniployiuent. Thus, fhe petitioners have no legal right to iciustateraent and regularization of his services. The nature of appoiatinent of the petitioners is purely as part- tune peon, on daily wages basis. The same was not done in accordance wifh riiles and as such the petitioners do not acquire any right to tiie post. It is wefl setfled prmciple of law by a catena of decisions fhat the eniployee appointed de-hors the constitutional scheine of eraployment aad not in accordance wifh law, has no right to continuation, retastateiaent or regularization ia service. This is also not fhe case of fhe petitioners that fhey were legaUy appointed, ia accordaace with law. (See Secretary, State of Karaataka aad others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others1, Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanaiid aud others2 ). Thus the petitioners are not entifled to any reUef, as clauned ia fhis petition. In view of the above, I do not find auy merit in fhis writ petition, which deserves to be aad is disnussed accordiagfy. Thahir Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' 2006 (4) SCC 1 2 2008.(10) SCC 1