H§GH SQQRT GF S§§HATT$G§RH A? %§LA$PE§§ BEW$ €3®R£Mz §§PELLANT PE?T%&NER RESPGNBENT$ HCW53LE $§ER§ R£§u£EEV GUPTA, €J. HDN’BLE 8HR§ $UNHL KUMAR $ENHA, J. Writ Appeei No. 2t of 20% Harishankar Netam Sm ~ Fatmram, aged about 39 years, Ric) Gram Panchayat - Antagarh, Janpad Panchayat — Antagarh, District — Uttar Basiar Kanker (C.G.) Versm State of Chhatiisgarh; threugh the Secretary, Department cf Panchayat and RuraE Development, p.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (0.6) Tm Commissbner, Chhattisgarh Empioymant Guarantee Council, Vikas Ayukt Karyaiaya, Vikgs Bhawan, Civil Line, Raipm’ (C.G.) Union 0f India, Through the Seafetary‘ Ministry of Rural development New Delhi. District Programme Coerdlnatcr (Collector) under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 Kanker, District — Uttar Easter Kanker (C.G.) L?! Janpad Panchayet, Antagarh, Threugh the Chief Executive Officer, District Utter Easter Kanker (C.G.) Zita Panchayat Kanker, Through the i Chief ExecutiVe Officer, District Uttar Easter Kanker (0G) ' WRW APPEN. UNSER $E$Tt§h§ 2 ‘3? CHHATTE$GARH E$H C0£§RT tiXPFEAL “F0 QWE$EON BENCH} RULES, 2%86 Firesent: Shri F;S. Khare, learned counsel for the appellant. tQN BENCH l \ \ Advocate Shri Pravéen for the Das, State! ieamed respondents Deputy Govemment No. 1, 2 and 4. . Shri R. Pradhan, Iaarned Standing Counse§ for respondent No.3. Jenememr (12m May, 29w) The faizewing judgment of the Court was paesed by Rajeev Grime, CuJ. Lbeamec? counse! for the parties are heard 0n LA. No.01X2GOQ, an application fur condonation oxé the deiay in wing the appeat. 2}. On due consideration of fhe eubmfssr‘ons ef Earned ceunse! for the parties and the greunds taken gn the applicatien, we are satisfied rhat the appelia‘nt hes succeeded in ehewing eufneient cause for the (relay in fiiing the appeei‘ 3) EA. Ne. (ii/20%, therefcre, ie ailoweai ane‘ the deiey in fiiing the Writ appeai is hereby condoned. 4) Learned cqunsei fer the pariiee are heard oh admieeion. 3) The appeiiant has fiied this writ appeal against the impugned erder dated 21.37.2008, paeeed in WPS. Name/2098. V 6) The appeiiantf petitiener was seeking a direction to the respondents to aliow him to continue on the post or’ ‘Gram Rojgar ,— Sehayak’ for one more year. 7} ‘ The petitioner was appointed as ‘Gram Roigar Sahayak’ on . contractuai basis for a period of one year. ' in the year 2008, the respondentspinitiated recruitment process for the post of ‘Gram QL Roggar Sahayak’. The petitioner participated in the said selection procese. inepite of gram of weightage of ten marks on account of his past expeiience on the said pest, the appellant could not be setected on a comparative merét of the candidates who participated in the selection process. The petitioner, thereafter, flied writ petition seeking his continuance on the said post. 8) The learned Singie Judge considering that the petitioner was appointed on contractuai basis for a limited period and tn View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the caseot State of Karnatatta & othere v, Umedevi (it; and others, reported in (26306} 4 SCC “i, heid that the petitioner had no right to claim his continuance on the said post and therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 21 E72008. 9) Shri F.S. Khare, learned counsei tor the appellant vehementty argued that the teamed Singie Judge has erred in dismissing the appeliant’s writ petition foliowing the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (supra; as the said case is not appiicable to the facts 0t the present case. 1Q) Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner was appointed on the post of ‘Gram Rojgar Sahayak’ for a limited period of one year on contract basis. The Apex Court in the case of State ot Karnatatta & others v. Umadevi (supra; has categoricaliy held in para 47 that a person appointed on contractual basis for a limited period cannot claim his continuance on the said post after expiry of the contract period as a matter of right. Thus, the petitioner cannot 'I 39 ctaim hEscontinuance on the post of ‘Gram Rojgar Sahayak‘ as of right“ 11) We, therefore, do not find any infi¥m£iy in the impugned order whereby the appeliant’s writ peiition was dismissed. 12) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/— l l Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Chief Justice l i ’7 Judge Judge