HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1268 of 2005 PETITIONER z Surendra Kumar Sinha aged 27 years son of Shri Panchram Sinha Ex Ass1stant Professor (Contract Syastem adhoc Appomtee) Govt College Balod TahSII Balod Dlstrlct Durg (C G ) ' VERSUS : 1. The State Government of Chhattlsgarh Through the Secretary, College Educatron M1nlstry, D K S Bhavan Ra1pur (C G) _ 2. Govt. Science, Arts & Commerce College, Balod, Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg (CG) RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA Single Bench : Hon’ble Justice Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL g (Passed on l9“ day of June, 2009) 1. The petitioner challenges the legality and Validity of the order dated 27.04.2004 (Annexure P/8) whereby the services of the petitioner came to an end on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on part—time contract basis till April, 2004. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 30.07.2003 (Annexure P/3) on'part-time basis for a period of 89 days. Thereafter, the period was again extended by order dated 30.10.2003 (Annexure P/5) for further period of 89 days. The services of the petitioner came to an end on 28.01.2004 (Annexure P/6). In the subsequent extension granted on 30.01.2004 (Annexure P/7), the petitioner continued till April, 2004. The services of the petitioner came to an end on completion of the extended period on 27.04.2004 (An‘nexure P/8). 3. I have heard leanied counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. if; HIT-(l r ‘ Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was part-time on contract basis, delwrs tho constitutional scheme of employment. There was no selection for the post and the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of 89 days initially. that continued for some time for less than one year. The nature of appointment of the petitioner is such which does not confer any right on the petitioner to the post. . It is a trite law that ifthe appointment of an employee is not in accordance with law and dehors theconstitutional scheme of employment. the employee has no right to the‘post to continue or reinstatement on the said post. (See Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.1, Ojjicz'al Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others2, State of U.P. and others Vs. Desh Raf and National Institute ofTechnology & Others v. Niraj Kumar Singh3). . Applying the well settled principles of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases cited above to the facts of the case, there is no merit in this case and the impugned order dated 27.042004 (Annexure P/8) does not warrant interference being just and proper. The appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual for 89 days on part—time basis. The service of the petitioner came to an end on completion ofthe period of contract. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. l Sd/- i ‘ l Satish K; Agnihotri ‘ Judge 12007 (1) scc 403 2 (2008) 10 scc 1 3 (2007) s scs 905 A? ,ti .