^" <'t In the Honble Hish Court of Chhajti'shgarh at Bilaspur (C.G.) W.P.No............^7.^......2004 Petitioner Homan Singh aged 37 A ^t^.-* year s/o late Shri ^'y Lekhansingh Village-Purai stt ^: ^v ..» /.h^ ^ 7^^- S.O* ^ - ^ ^? Post -Purai, Distt.-Durg C.G.Pin-491107 ^ ^'.^•" /' ^'^A>' <^^ R^spondents versus 1 .State Govemment ofChhattishgarh, through the Secretary, Higher Education, D.K.S., Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2.The Pfmeipal, Govemment CollGge^w'T^^w^ Utai, District Durg (C.G.) l^ ^' Writ Petition under article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. The petitioner furnishes the particulars ofthe writ petition as under;- APf^ s-' COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR PET3TSQNER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITJON N0.576 OF 2004 Hornan Singh Versus State Government of Chhattisgarh & Another And VV.P. Nos.577, 572 & 2346 of 2004 and W.P.Nos.404 & 298 of 2005 (Writ Petitions under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitutlon of India) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sonikan.f Verma and Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, counse! for the respective pet-itloraers, Shrl ftfl.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocsts for the State. ORDER'(ORAU (Passed on thls 15tn day of February, 2010) 1) Since W.P.Nos.575, 577, 572 & 2346 of 2004 and W.P. Nos. 404 & 298 of 2005 invoive a common auestion of iaw as weli as common facts and, as svch, ali the.petitjons-are consldered together and disposed of by this common order. 2) By these petitioriS, the petitloners seek a dlrectjon to the respondent autliorities to consider thelr respective cases for reguSarization of their servlces from the date of their initial appointment on dally wages basis. 3) Learned counsel.appearing for the petitioners subrnite that initiaiiy the petJtloners were appointed in the respondent department for a period of 89 days on daliy wages, thereafter the said period was extended from time to time, but tlil date the services of the petitioners have not been regularteed in spite of the fact that the work and condyct of the petitloners are found satisfactory. Thus, these petitions. ....'^—. &> ^ ^ 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State subrnlts that the petitioners were not appolnted in accordance with the constltutiona! scheme of erTtpioyment as the petltioners ¥/ere appolnted cn daiiy wages basls. Even the services of the daiiy wager couid be terniinated at any point oftirne wlihout any notice, and thus, the petltioners are not to any reliief. 5) . J have heard iearned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pieadings the documents appended thereto» 6) The Issue involved in the present petitlon Is no longer re^ as the Suprenie Court, in a of declsions has ciear that the employees appointed on daliy basis have no right to continue in service or reguiarizatlon. The appointment is de the constltutionai scheme of employment. 7) Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on dally wages and not In accord^nce wlth the constitutionai scheme of empioyment. The appolntment af the petitioners was purely on temporaiy .basls, A temporar^, ad noc employee^daiiy cannot cjairn regularizatjon, continuance or reinstatement In service on the basis of appointmen't whlch vvas te'mporar^ not in accordance with law and the was de hors'the constitutlonai scheme of employment. (See Secretsfy, State of Karn&taka and Others vs. Umadew {3} and Others, indlan Drugs & Pharmaceu'tlcals Ltd. v. Workmen, indlan Dwgs & PharmaceuilcQls Ltd2, Qfficlal Liquidator v. Dsyanand and others3 and ofPunjab and Others- v. SurjltSingh and OtSTers). ! (2006) 4 -3CC 1 22007ri)SCC4Q8 3 (2008) 10 SCC 1 4.(2009)93cc 514 8) With regard to reguiarisstion of the empioyees working on daily wages basis, the Supreme Court In Umadevl (supra), observed as under: ''Thus, it is ciear that adherence to the rule of equajlty in public employment is a baslc feature of our Constitution and since the ruie of iaw is the core of 'our Constjtutloo, a court would certalnly be disabied from passing an order uphoidlng. a vlolatlon of Artlcie 14 or in ordering the overiooklng of the need to compiy with the requirements of Article 14 with Artlcle 16 of the Constitution. Therefcre, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this'Court whiie layjng down the law, has necessarijy to hold that uniess the appolntment is in terms of the relevant ruies and after a proper competitjon among quaiified persons, the same wouid not confer any right on th@ appolntee." 9) The above ratio lald down by the Supreme Court has been by this Court In Ashwani Kumar Verma & Oihers v. of ChhaWgarh & AnQthe^ and Somendra Pratap Singh v. The State of M.P. St otners6' Agalnst the order passed sn Somendra Pratap Singh (suprah the petltjo.ner thereln preferred a wrlt appea! beirsg WA. (PR) No. 2077 of 2008. whlch was dismissed bv the Dlvlsion Bench of thls Court by order dated 29-4-2008 afflrmlng the order passed by the Single Bench. Thereagalnst the matter was up to the Supreme Court by flilng Speclal-Leave Petltion being S.LP.(C) No. 27190/2008 iSomendra Pratap Ssngh v. of Chhsttisgarh & Others), whlch ^vasalso dlsmlssed by the Supreme Court affirming the view taken by this Court, vlde Its order dated 23-3-2009. 10) Thls C-ourt in Sanjay Pat'1 v. of ChhatGsgarh & Anothe^, whjle dealing with simllar issue observed that "if the State Government has regylarized some of the daiiy wagers, not appointed In accordance 5 WP (S) No.1743 of 2009 decided on 28-4-2009 s W.P.(S) No. 1347 of 2005 decided on 26-2-2008 7 WP (S)'No.5845 of 2009 decided on 9-10-2009 ;'-<%. || j \%J'/ '^;.': £W^^ Gowri 13, 14) 15) with the constjtutional scheme of eiTipioyment, thls Court cannot issue a positive directlon to legalise the jliegal appointment on the ground certaln appointments have legalized/regularized by the ernployer. 11) in this context, the Supreme Court, in ABhok Kumar SonkBr v. Union offndia8, observed as under: H34. !t is not a case where appointment was Irregular. If an appolntment Is Irregular, the same can be reguiarised. The Court may not take serious note of an jrregularlty wjthin the meaning of the provisions of the Act* But if an appolntment is illegai, it Is non est in the eye of Saw, -which renders the appointment to be a nujiity." 12) Further, In State of Punjab & another v. Sufjlt Slngh & Others9, the Supreme Court the above ratlo In the folSowjng terms: "39. We wouid, however, before pa'rting an observation that the submissjon of the •ieamed counsel th.at onlv because junlors have got the beneflt, the same by Ifself cannot be a gi^ound for extending the to the respondents herein. It is now wei! known that the equaiity dause contained in Articie 14 snoyjd be Invoked oniy where the parties are slmijariy situated and where orders in tneir favour are and not iiiegai. !t has a positive concept." in vlew offoregoing, for the reasons herelnabove and appiying the we!i princlples of law to the of the present case wherein the petltloners were appointed purely on temporary basis, thev are not entltled to anv re!lef. In the resuit, the wrlt petitioos are disrnissed. There shall be no order asto coste. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 3 (2007) 4 SCC 54 9 (2009) 9 SCC 514