./ ,/t,/T -. /° ^cS>^5- -12 ^^o^63? oye^ \X^i JS •EBS WSSS&. SIffB ABHIBISTBASI^g TBIBBBAI. EBZHGIEM. BBea AI J&B&LPUB (a.P.5, O.A^Q._o? 1996. APPLIGAHTS : .«»•.• -^' fi 1. Ishwardas, aged atooal; 26 years, S/b.Sarfchldas ManikpaFi. -y 2. Pfaalbai, aged abeat 2$ years, B/o.Ban Safaa. 3. OautEaran, aged aboat 3k- years, S/e.jaga-anatb .Sxn^».; :' : l)-. Sat .Baaictmwar, ageel alioat 32 years, W/o.Santraa. 5. Shyamlal Patel, aged afeout 3$ years, S/o. ,. Kejaaram. 6. Santaraa Kewat, aged aboat 2? year's, S/o. Msalauraa Kewab. ?. BajeslawarXaaar S^ia, aged aSout 25 years, S/o*I>abe Bbaiyaraa Saha., . 8. J.Miaj, aged abogl; 39 years, S/o.Lajraa Mlnj. 9. A.sbolc Eamar Sbriyas, |aged aboHt 30 years, S/o.BaBlai •Srivas. : !: : • ,^ ,:•.,:.' ©. Nanki Pandiia, ageS aN'at; 2$ years, S/G.Bfaa.aaQraa. AII worteiag as Helpers <Baily-rsteia-worlceFs),» @/©. S ,B .0^.,: Has®te®;Ba3"ajtl:Sat>-' M^si^, 'Of^i/S/S.j/mSSo^ P.G.Hasaeo Prejecl;, ferba, DISTBieT:BILASO®ff;'(M.P.)., •yersas — ' • i 1. State ef Sadhya BeaSesh, Throaghs Seeret,ary, | ^fafeeE Besouree Be®art;nent.,_ ^&ila^. 'B&waSfWSP&L W-S-y ,2.1'l,Bn,gineer-lB-Gb.lef,'j.^;\ ^aber; Besouipees iSegaa-tffleiaf, ;Sbivajl.H':agar^,^i,-;.| 'BBOE&I.' (M:.P.);.-:^> iliffil ffliffi IJfflg f 3. 'Gtoief aigineery . '. . ; ' Miaii Mata Hasde®Baagp JProjeet &overQaent of Madbya Peadesh, BIIASPVB (M.P.). ' , ' ', / l.1-. Sugerint°BdlngBBgilieer, Hasdeo^PTOjee^ ManSaI, , Banpar, Ecarta,. : ' . ,; BISTBIGIsBILASFlffi :(M.?.). ,- ^, Sab MTisi<aal Sffleer, Hasdso B/^i(.B/B)i Sai> Bivxsicaa Barri, Korba, BIS'EBIGItBELASPTO .(B.P.). ' e. SaB Sirisional Qfficer, Sasdeo Brara3, BBG., Ho.II,. PEOjeet, Kerba, BISIBIGT:BII>^PTO . (M.P.) . S&'MVS fiF -*SWlM£im ^_^ HIOH COURT OP JUDICATURB CaiHATnSGARH: BILASPOR SInjjle Bench: Hon'ble Shri SaUah K. AgaUiotri, J. W. P. Mo. 1383 ofSOOS Petitaaners : Isliwanias & others Versus Respoiidents : StateofMadhyaPralesh - (now Chhattisgarh) & othcrs Shri. Gautain Khetrapal, Advocate for fhc petitioneis. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyer for fhe respondente. ORDER (Passed on tUs 3rt dsy ofJanuary, 2lWf7 } 1. Admittedty, the petitioners were appointed as daify rated employees on niuster-ioU basis at the rate fixed by the CoUector. Vide order dated 30.7.1994 engagement of fhe petitioners as daity rated emptoyees came to aa end. 2. The petitioners by this petition sedt quasbing of tfac order dated 30.7.1994 and regularizatk>n wifh efFect fiiom fhe mitial appoiatcaent as dafly wage worfeerwith aU consequential bcnefits. 3. It is adinitted fact that fhe appointiuent of fhe petitfoDcis was not ia accordance with law and dehors the constitutioiial scheme. The appoiutment of the petitmuers was not through the advertisement or by inviting applications ttuough aay ofher ineans fioia all eligible caudidates. It is weU settled principle of law fhat the daily wageis, teiaporaiy or ad hoc employees have no right to the post seeking regularization and grant of regular pay scate, if fheir appoiDtments were dehors fhc constitutuiial schfime or the rutes madc under tbe proviso to Articte 309 ofthe Constitutkia oflndia. 6. In the case of Seeretaty, •B(atB of BeBiunBfufca «aul otfcerB Vs. ffmadert1 the Supreme Court bas laid down ctear cnimciatioa of law which waa foUowed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court, viz. Acceante QjQfiteer (M&9 AJP.SRTC OMl others vs. P. Chandra Sekhara. Kao wid wthera1, iSarinder Prasml Tlwarl ws. V.P. Kf^ya. Krtshl Wpadmt Ma»MU Partshad cuid aUMsrs3, Nagea' ^ Ualuy>aUJea{iwwJttitnlelpat Corpn.) vs. State «fVJf.and otfters4 aud U.P. State Road. Transpert Carporatton 93. Man Stiigl^. 7. In the case of Secretmy, Statoe of Karnataka. and ottwrs (Supra), fhe Supreine Court observed as under:- •fS. While directing thcd appomtmenfe, tempormy w cosuaf, be regulmised or mcufe perma.nent, the oourts are swayed by the facl tha.l ihe persdn canoemed has worked for sane time and in aome cases fw a consicteraWe length cf <fme. It is nof as if ihe person who aocepfs cm. engagement erther tempcfrcay or casucit in nature, »s nat cawxw of fhe nalwe offus employmeni He accepfs the entploymeni wMi open eyes. R nwy be true that he is not in a pasttion to bwgain - not at tirm's lengfh - since he rm^vl have been searefa'ng fw some employineni so as to ehe out his fiveKhood and aooepfe whateuer he gets. But on that ground afone, it would rwi be appropriate to jettison fhe constitutional scfteme of appoinlmenl and to tafce (he w'ew thaf a person who has femporari?y or <xisuaUy got employed shaadd be directed to be oontinued permanenlly. By daing so, it will be crealmg anather mode of pubtic appowitntenl which is nof pemtissible." "47. When a person enters a temponay employmenl or gefs engagement as a oonfractua? or oasua/ wwker and the engagement is not based on a proper seferiion as reoognised by the relevant rules or proaedure, he is aware of ihe consequenoes ofthe appoinhnent being temporary, onsutri or contrcudual in mxture, Sucfa a peison oannot invoke the fflla? 8. 9. theory of legitiinale eaqpecfafton for being cor^wmed in the pos( when an appoinhnent to the post cautd be ma.de onty by foHowing a proper procedure for aeIefMon caid in oases consemed, in consuBafton with ihe Public Senrice Conwussion.s> For the reasons above-stated and aa per the dicta laid down by the Supremc Court, the petitioaers are not entitled to pennHnent status or regularization ia fhe servk-e and consequential benefits. This petition is acconiingly disiitissed. No otder as to costs. 1 (20(»)4SCC1 2 (2CKB) 7 SCC 488 3 (2008)7SCCe84 4 2006 AIRSCW 2497 5 2006 AIRSCW 5159 Thakur