.-^- C?\go^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^6^2- QF 2007 PETITIONER .0^ /' ^ ^ ^ ^ Vijay Dubey Son of Late Shri Hridayanand Dubey, aged about 29 years, Resident of Tiwari Buitding (Dhruv Smriti Bhawan), In front of JSovt, Primary School Godhanpur, Ambikapur, District SuFguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. z^ /^^ ^^ '-"' f,x ' ^y^ ./^"~p 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). ^ The Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Assistant Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Police Headquarters, Raipur (C.G.). 4. The Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). WRH- PETTTION UNDER ARTICLE 2Zg(3F THE CONSTITUTIQN_OF INDIA FO_R_ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION ETC. ^ 1 ^" 'w 1 mOH COURT OF CHHATTLSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) Vo._6Sl2 of2007 AF^ -jr-3 PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS Vijay Dubey. VERSUS State ofCUhattisgarh & Others. #> Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on . .£S"dayofMarch, 2010." Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ,--7 fc. mOH COURT OF GHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6812 of2007 PETITIONER : VyayDubey. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri V-K.Pandey, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri M-P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. JUDGMENT ,^ (Delivered on..-<s'..day of March, 2010) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 06.07.1999 (Annexure P/3) whereby the appointment ofthe petitioner on the post ofConstable on temporary basis was cancelled on the ground thatthe petitioner could not pass class 10 examination within a period of two years, and fiirther, the letter dated 07.06.2003 (Annexure P/6) whereby the representation ofthe petitioner for absorption on the post of Constable was rejected. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Boy Ardali in the police department on 02.05.1993 (Aimexure P/l) on the death ofhis father namely Hpdayanand Dubey, Constable,in the year 1992, in hamess. At that time, the petitioner was minor. On attainmg the age ofmajority i.e. 18 years, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable vide dated 30.04.1997 (Annexure P/2) on temporary basis with a condition that the service ofthe petitioner could be terminated any time with one month's notice or in lieu thereof, one months salary. It was further prescribed in the order that the petitioner i^s. w- 5. ^z was required to obtaiu class 10 pass certificate within a period oftwo years. The petitioner failed to obtain the requisite qualification within a period oftwo years, thus, the temporary appointment ofthe petitioner was cancelled by order dated 06.07.1999 (Annexure P/3. The petitioner made a representation on 04.05.2003 (Annexure P/5) to the Additional Director General ofPolice, Raipur, which was subsequently rejected by letter dated 07.06.2003 (Aimexure P/6). Thus, this petition. Shri V-K.Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner could not pass class 10 examination witfun a period oftwo years, however, the petitioner had obtained the aforesaid qualification in the year 2002 and as such, having regard to the family condition ofthe petitioner, the respondent authorities may be directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Constable &om the date of obtaining class 10 pass certificate. On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, leamed Govemment Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would submit that appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis and was further subject to the condition ofpassing class 10 examination within a period oftwo years, which was the requisite educational qualification for appointment on the post of Constable. The petitioner failed to pass class 10 exammation within the prescribed period of two years which was also a probation »i" period. The services of the petitioner came to an end. There is no malaflde or stigma. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the appointment ofthe petitioner was purely temporary and not through any selection process and fhe same was subject to obtaining fhe minimum educational qualification i.e. class 10 examination certificate. The SV! HWWttSc!SSWV9sa sW liyiSt t{f; r-^Tia I, •< 7, 9. petitioner failed to acquire the said qualification within the prescribed period of two years. Thus, the impugned order dated 6.7.1999 (Annexure P/3) cannot be held as vitiated. Furtheir it is well settled principle of law that if an appointment is made dehors the constitutional scheme of employment, the appomtment is govemed under fhe terms and conditions as prescribed in the appointment order. In the case on hand, it was specifically provided in the appointment letter dated 30.04.1997 (Annexure P/2) that he was required to obtam the mmimum requisite qualification of passmg class 10 examination within a period oftwo years, failing which his services would be termmated. There is no dispute that the petitioner could not pass class 10 examination within a period oftwo years, which he had passed in the year 2002. Thus, the petitioner has no right to continue on the post for want of minimum educational qualification which was a clear condition ofthe appointment order also. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is bereft ofmerit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order asto costs. —— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit