LN THE HQN’BLE HIGH COURT: OF CHHATTISCIARH AT'BILASPUR OM A” /2903 W.P.NO. QQNSTITUT-mw m? INDIA. PETITIONER _RESPONDENTS Rajbahadur Singh, son of Shri Ram/‘handra Singh, aged about 33 years, residenw of Ring Road, Boripara, Ambikapur, (Behind School), District ~ Surguja (Chhattisgarh). pk. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through z Principal Secretaly, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Commissioner, Tribal Department, Digs. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Collector, Surguja, at Ambikapur, Dist] :t — Surguja (Chhattisgarh). Director Bishop — House, Catholic Dysis Schools Nayapara, Arnbikapur, Distt. ~ Surgnja (Chhattisgarh). Principal, Prabhat Higher Secondary School, Rai Raghunathpur, Tah. Lundra, District ~ Surguja {Chhattisgarh). / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 / 227L614“ THE AFK i a W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 292 of 2003 Petitioner Rajbahadur Singh Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & ofhexs Singe Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. mihotri. Present: Shn' R.N. Jha, Advocate for the peh‘tioner. Shri A.S. Kachwaha, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Iespondents No. 1 to 3/State. Shn‘ A.K. Prasad, Advocate for the respondents No. 4 6r. 5. 0 R D E R (27th November, 2006} The following order of the Comt was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J 1. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as U.D.T. in Prabhat Higher Secondary School, Rai Raghunathpur, Tahsil Lundra, Dishict— Surg‘uja in the year 1994 and therealter, he was recruited on the post of Lecturer vide Older dated 26.6. 1995 (Annexure P/2). Order dated 26.6. 1995 (Anneme P/ 2) appears to. be an order recruiting the petitioner on the post of Lecturer followed by formal order dated 1.7.1995 (Annexure R-4] 1). 2. Term of the appointment of the petih'oner was for a period of 4 years hom 1.7.1995 to 30.6.1999. On the expiry of the term of x the appointment, services of the petitioner was discontinued. 3. The petin'oner has hled this writ petition on 16.1.2003, after a period of about three and half years seeking relief/direction to . gg quash the onier dated 11.5,1999 whexeby the petiu'oner was relieved hm his sewicc. The petitioner has further prayed for arrears, D.A., increment, G.P.F. etc. along with interest @18°A) per mum. It is well settled principle of law that the temporary, adhoc or contract appointees have no legal light to the post. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim for regularizationlabsorption or continuation in the service. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevl (3) and othersl, in para 44 has held as under.- “44. .............. It would not be just or proper to pass an order in exercise ofjun'sdiction under Article 226 or 32 ofthe Constitution or in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution permitting those persons engaged, to be absorbed or to be made permanent, based on their appointments or engagements. Complete justice would be justice according to law and though it would be open to this Court to mould the relie£ this Court would not grant a relief which would amount to perpetuating an illegality. ’ In the case of Secretary, state of Kmataka and others (Supra) the Supreme Court has laid down clear enunciation of law which was followed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court. Some are Accounts omcer My A.P.3R1C and others us. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao and othersz, Surlnder Prasad Tlwari vs. (LP. Rajya Krishi Utpadau Mandi Parishad and other-:3, Nagar Mahapalika (now Municipal Corpn.) us. state ,t of U.P. and others" and (LP. St: tn Road Transport Corporation vs. Man Singh5. “45, While directing that appoimments, temporary or casual, be regulan'sed or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fad that the person concerned has worked for same time and in some (uses for a considerable lengih oftime. It is not as tfthe person who cwoepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain. — not at arm’s length — since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it woutd not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be aeating another mode ofpublic appointment which is not permissible. " ‘37. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature, Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being cor$rmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following 'a proper procedure for seledion and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission " 7. In the case of Secretary, state of Kamataka and others (Supra), the Supmme Court observed as under :- (1%0!»5: Subhosh 4 g7 For the reasons above-stated and as per the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entitlad to continuation/permanent status or regularization in the service. This petition is acooniingly dismissed. No Older as to costs. Sdl~ satish K. Agnihoui Judge (2006) 4 SCC l (2006) 7 SCC 488 (2006) 7 SCC 684 2006 AIR SCW 2497 2006 AIR SCW 5159 31