^. COIIRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPl.TR \Vnt,Pe&6wiV<^lo94uf2W6 STIQNBB ' Kapoor Chand Bhoi S/o Jhiimuk La! aged about 39 years Wo ViUage Memra, District Mahasamund (CG). VE.RSUS CE.SPQNDENTS : 1. Tlie State of Cyiaftisgarh Througli fee Secretaiy, Department ofForest, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Head ChiefConsen/ator ofForest, Raipur (CG). 3. The CteefConservator ofForest, Raipur (CG). 4. Divisioaai Forest OfBcer, District Mahasamund (CG). 5. The Forest Range Officer, Basna, District Mahasamund (WWT PETITtON LT-TOKR ARTTCLE 226/227 OF T . CONSTTTLmON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'Me Mr. Ss&sh K. AgiMfeofa'*> •?•) Pi-esent : Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate forthepetitionei". Shri Saash Gupta, Govt. Advocate for Cne Sfate/respondents. (Passed on 27th ofFeii-ruary, 2008) }. The petitioner was appomted as Security Guard in Forest Department iii the year 1987 on dailywages basis. The services of the petitioner was disengaged on several times without their being contiauation in sen'ice on daily^rages basis. Tbe Services ofthe petitioner vvas agam engaged 011 09.09.200CL hith©sanie capacit)^ on1'e?nporar3/f basis. 2. By this petitio", the petitioner seeks a direction to the re.spondetits to coiisider ilic ca^e of the petitioner for regiilarizMion i?i tlie liglit of the circuiar dated 09.01.1990 issued bv the M.P. Go\'t. He fi.irther subniits that under the said drcular the theii State ofM.P. has regularized aU the laboiirs working oa dailywages or ad hoc basis oa 31.12.1998. 3. The petitionsr has prefeiTed tiiis petitioii, seeking conipliance oflhe above stated ca-ciilar. AJ! tfae decisions directing regiilarization ofthe einployees appointed, dehors the constitirtion scheme of eiiip'oyiiient and aot ui accordance with law, impliedly stand ovemjied, "i view ofthe decision of the Con^titiition Bench of Siiprenic Coiirt of indi^- in th^ niatter of r Sass-etaTy, State ot'Kaniatalca asid Others Vs. Uma Devi and others (2006 (4) SCC 1). Tlie Hon'ble Supreme Court has iaid do'»iiclear eiiunciation of l^w ^s'hlcb wa?? followcd later on in various decisions b^r the Supreiiie Coiirt. 4. In the case of Seci'etsn^ Slat^ ofKss'i'istaka siid Othcrs Vs. Uni^ Oevi and othere (Supra) the Supreme Gou.it observed as under: "Thus it is clear that adhereiiee to tfae mie of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our constitution anu since the rule of !aw is the core of our Coastitirtion, a court would eertamly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation ofArticle 14 or iii ordering tiie overlookiiig of the iieed to comply with the requirements ofArticle 14 read with Article 16 ofthe Constitirtion. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while Saying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless tfae appointmeat is <n teniis ofthe relevant niies and after a proper competition among quaiified persons, the same would not confer anv ri^ht on th^ aoioohitci?........ .'f 5. !n the li^it ofthe above, Ae petitioner casiiot claim aay regulanzatiQn or reiiistatement in sendce on tlie basis of his appointment which was temDorar^/ and not in aecordanc^ v^ith law. 6. Aecordhigly, the writ petition is dismissed. No ;"«;Aau^A-^^—*- Satisb K. Agnihotti Judge sahu