@ HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETiTlON (S) No. 1835 of 2095 PETITIONER : Dhannu Naik aged abQut 32 years: son of Shri Mmm Naik, w occupa‘pioii ~ sawice, r/o Railway Colony, Pendra Road, District Biiaspur. RESPONDENTS VERSUS . State of Madhya Pradesh through the Secretary, Ministry of Education Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopai. The Coimmssioixer, Higher Education, Satpura Bhawam Bhopal. )Sx. Present: 3. The Additional Director Directorate of Higher Education, Satpura Bhawan, Bhopa}. 4A The Additional Director, Higher Education Regiooai Office, Biiaspur. d. The Principal, Government Girls Coiiege, Pendra Road, Dimict Bilaspur. E OF TEE wmNlS’FRA’i‘H/E TRIBUNALS ACT; ArrLICAnoN urmER SECTION 1985 in e Boneh z Hor’ atish K. A nihot ‘ie Justice Sh Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitiooer. Sort. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on 13m day of June, 2007) \ The petitioner {was appointed as Book Litter vide order dated 09. 10.1996 (Annexure A12) passed by the respondent no. 5 on temporary basis. appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with constitutiona1 scheme of employment as no publication of vacancy, inviting eligible candidates was madeéfThe petitioner has also not through the selection process for appointment. Thus, the aypointme the petitioner is non‘est in the eye of law. The the gone nt of u ri S i S ri. After appointment; the petitioner has worked for sometime. The petitioner’S appointment came to an end Vide order dated 22.02.1999 as the appointment of the petitioner which was dehors the constimtional scheme of employment, was not approved by the Commissioner, Higher Education. According to the 1earned counsel for the petitioner, the post of Book Lifter is still available even today. The petitioner has sought for relief in this petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to qnash the order dated 22.02. 1999. Be that as it may. admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was on temporaxy basis without following due procedures of law, contrary to the constitutional scheme of employment. Thus, the petitioner has no right to the post. The impugned order dated 22.02.1999 was passed on the ground that the appointment was not approved by the Commissioner, Higher Education. In View ofthe settled position of law, daily rated, temporary or ad hoe or contract appointees have no right to the post as their appointment was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of the employment and not in accordance with any Rules, Regulations as framed under the proviso to Articie soabfthe Constitution or India. In View ofthe foregoing, the petition is dismissed, summarily. ,.._.._i Sdl- t‘ Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Amit