<25. @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 'WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4034 of2007 PETITIONER : KUSHAL SEIGH SAHU S/o Hariram SAhu, Aged about 42 Yrs. Resident Of Village, Bevmti, Tahsil and District Kanker (North Bastar) C.G. VERSUS : 1. STATE OF CHHA'ITISGARH Through - Secretary Health (Veterinary Services) D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur (C.G. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR Veterinary Smices Distt. a Kanker (Nmth Bastar) C.G. RESPONDENTS 3. COLLECTOR Kanker (North Bastar) CG. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ Single Bench: Hon’hle Justice Shri Satish 1g Aggym. no...— Present: Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the Stale/respondem ORDER (Passed on 12m day of July, 2007) 1. The petitioner was appointed as Part-Time Sweeper on daily wages basis vide order dated 01.11.1995 (Annexure P/2). Thereaiier, the services of the petitioner was converted to Full-time on daily wages basis vide order dated 21.02.1997 (Annexure P/3). The services of the petitioner was considered alongwith others and on account of non-availability of sanctioned post, the services of the petitioner on daily wages basis was discontinued vide order dated 28.06.2000 (Annexure P/7). 2. The petitioner has impugied the said order in this petition on the ground that once the petitioner has been granted Full-Time engagement, there is no reason to remove him from service without giving him any proper opportunity ofhearing. @ . It is well settled principle oflaw that a daily wages employee has no right to the post as the appointment itself is dehors the constitutional scheme of employment and not in accordance with rules and regulalions earned under Article 309 ofthe Constitution of India. The petitioner was never regularis’ed in serviee. Only his services from Part—Time engagement was convened into FulLTixne engagement and that does not confer any right on the petitioner, as the basic appointment itself was not in accordance with the constitutional provisions of law. The impugned order stating that there is no vacancy available for regularisation of the petitioner is perfectly valid and in accordance with law. The petitioner has no right which can be enforced by this Court in exercise ofits jurisdiction. In View ofthe foregoing the petition is dismissed, summarily. Sdl- . Satish K. Agnihotri Judge