/r" ;-c^>/ c&iftu •fcNl IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (8) N0. ^^ OF 2010 PETITIONERS: ,0^'/ ^Xrfy. y^X\y \->-.^'\^'oy -/^'.--<\^'^ ^^ ^y^' ^Jl:l ^'./'.. '^y ia 1. Smt. Mamta Baghel.^/o Shri Manohar Baghel, ^^ caste Ganda, High School Devdongar , Block Mainpur, District Raipur (CG). ^' 2. Dilip Kuinar Sinha S/o Shriram Sinha , aged about 30 years, by caste Kalar, High School Pendra, Block Mainpur, District Raipur / (CG). 3. Lokpal Baghel S/o Mahendra Baghel, aged about 25 years, by caste Ganda, High School Deharguda, Block Mainpur, District Raipur (CG). 4. Heinant Kumar Patel S/o Shri Dilwar Patel, aged about 26 years, by caste Marar, High School Adgarhi, Block Mainpur, District Raipur (CG). 5. ^ <•-' Avish Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Basant Singh, aged about 22 years, by caste Rajput, Ashrara Badegobara, Block Mampur, District Raipur (CG). 6. Sanjay Kuinar Patel S/o Jagguraai Patel, aged about 28 years, by caste Marar, High School Jhariyabahra, Block Mainpur, District Raipur (CG). 7. Ganesh Ram Sahu S/o Shri Lalarara Sahu, aged about 30 years, by caste Teli, High School Gopalpur, Block Mainpur, District Raipur (CG). 8. Puran Singh Nagesh S/o Shri Jivan Lal , aged about 21 T&S -^. <' RESPONDENTS yearsby caste Gond, High School Kurrubhata, Block Mainpur, District Raipur (CG). VERSUS ./ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, School Education Departanent, Raipur, District- Raipi.lr, (C.G.), 2. The Director, PubUc Instructions, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.), f' 3. District Education Raipur (CG.). Officer, 4. /" Block Education Officer, Tribal Development Block, Mainpur, Distaict Raipur (CG). <>•'' 5. Shri Damrudhar Pujari , MLA, Bindranawagarh No. 55, Village Mungapadar, Post Urraal, Tahsil Mainpur, District Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA ~*ia.., HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SIHGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Writ Petitioa (S) No. 3477/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Mamta Baehel & others Versus State of Chhatdsgarh and others Petitioa u/A 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Mr. Awadh Tripafhi, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Paael Lawyer for ftie State, on advance copy. QRAL-QRDIBR (Passed on 15.7.2010) Heard on adinission. 2 This petition has been filed by fhe petitioners, daily wage eiuployees, aggrieved by order dated 25.5.2010 (Aruuexure P-1), passed by 4th respondent/Block Education OfScer, Manipur. By fhe iinpugned oider, services offhe petitioners have been temiinated. 3 Leamed counsel for fhe petitioners, assaflmg the legalily and validity of the oider of teriiunation, submitted fhat tlie termination orders have been issued to oblige respondent No.5. It is subinitted that ia fhe garb of direction of local M.L.A., pick & choose raefhod has been adopted aad services of large number of daUy wage eniployees iacluding fhe petitioners have been termiaated, wliereas, niany daily wage einployees are stffl beiag atlowed to continue, resulting ia discrimiuation. It is further subinitted that fhe petitioners have acquired eUgibiUly criteria -2- .3^ .^: •'' :^" ^ for regular appotatiaent as Class-IV eiaployees aad tiiey were apporated ^aiust sanctioned and vacaat post. Though, no regular iucumbent has been appoiated against fhe post on which petitioners were appointed and working, at the behest ofrespondent No.4, services of the petitioners have been temiiaated. It is subiaitted that petitioner were appoiated by a resolution passed by fhe Gram Panchayat and report of Head Master of the Middle School after due scrutiny of fheir qualifications aad upon fuU satisfaction that petitioners fa3fi11 the eligibly criteria for appohitment to Class-IV post aad therefore the appoiataaents ofthe petitioners caruiot be tenned as back door estry or coutraiy to provisiou of service rule. It is furfher subnutted that though petitioners' services have beea ter-miaated on fhe reconunendation of respondent No.4, however, services of 8 other daily wage euiployees, who have been appointed after fhe petitioners, have been contiiiued. 4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 25.5.2010 shows that the services of fhe petitioners have been termiaated as fhere is no budgetarv aUocation aad iastructioas were issued by the local M.L.A. on 19.5.2010 for termination ofdaily wage employees. It is petitioners' ovrsi case that fhey were appoiiited on daily wage basis on coUectorate rate uutil furfher orders. Though, it has been aven-ed ia fhe petition that the petitioners were appointed as per service rules, neifher in ftie petition, nor during fhe course of arguruents, it was deinonstrated wifh i^ference to ftie applicable service rules that any advertiseinent was issued uivitiag appUcation for appointnient on regular basis aad appointment were made in substantive capacity by foUowing the procedure prescribed under fhe relevant and applicable service rules. \ \ There is no averment fhat any advertiseiaent was issued invitin^ -3- appUcations from. aU concemed, eligible aud wiUiag to seek appoiuttaent. It is therefore clear fhat fhe appouitment of the uetitioners was not in accordauce with fhe coastitutional procedure. 5. Iii the case ofSecretar?, State ofKariiataka Mid others^Vs, Umadevi j3i & others, (20061 4 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court has held as under: "43.....,.Therefore, cousistent with the schenie for public eruployinent, this Court whfle laymg down the law, has necessarilv to hold fhat unless the appoiatment is ia tenns offhe relevant rules aad after a proper competition among quaUfied persons, the same would not confer aay right on fhe appoiutee. If it is a contractual appoiatment, fhe appoiatinent comes to aa end at fhe end of the contract, if it were an engageinent or appointaient on daUy wages or casual basis, fhe saiae would coiue to aa end when it is discontinued. Siaulady, a temporaiy employee could not claim. to be made pennatient on the expuy of his term of appouitaient. It has also to be clarified fhat merely because a teniporaiy einployee or a casual wage worker is continued for a tinie bevond the term of his appointmeat, he would not be entitled to be absorbed ia regular service or inade peniiaaent, nierely on the strength of such contiuuaace, if the ongiaal appointment was not inade by foUowing a due process of selection as euvisaged by fh.e relevaat rules. It is not open to the coiirt to prevent regular recniitment at the instaace of teinporary einployees whose period of eiaployiiient has coine to an end or ofad hoc einployees who by fhe veiy nature of their appoiatment, do not acquire any r^ht. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordiuarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permaitent coiitifcauance uiiless fhe recruitanent itself was m.ade regularly aad ia tenns ofthe constitutional scheiae". -4- Praveen. Therefore, fhe petitioners have no right to hold fhe post on which fliey were appointed wifhout followiag fhe regular process of selection. Petitioners were appointed ia difFereat schools and fheir services have been terminated on account of non-availability ofbudgetaiy aUocation. No exception can be taken if fhe local M.L.A. wrote letter for tennuiation of daily wage eniployees. The order of terinination shows ftiat services of the petitiouers have been teraeunated for want of budgetary aUocation in view of iastructions issued bv local M.L.A.. Contention of leamed counsel for the petitioners that smular daily wage employees are stiU being allowed to continue, would not give the petitioners a r^ht to continue on fheir respective places of posting, once fheir services have been termiuated for want ofbudgetary allocation. 6. In fhe result, I do not fiiid any fflegality ia the order of tenmnation. The petition has no merit. The saaie deserves to be dismissed aad is accordiagly dismdssed. 7. No orders as to cosfc Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge