^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR w.p. (si yo.ry^& of 2010 PETITIONER Dilip Kumar Chauhan, aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Puniram Chauhan, R/o Village-Bargarh, P.0. Sarwani, District-Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ^/^•^y y^y -c%^S J)s"i^<7 .°;' /^'ry •a' ./o- ^.n ^y : 1.' State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Schedule Caste 8& Schedule Tribe Development Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. 'The Coinmissioner, Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe Development Department, Pt. Ravishankar University Campus, Raipur (C.G.) 3. -"The Collector (Tribal Development Branch), Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The Assistant Coniinissioner, Schedule Caste 85 Schedule Tribe Developinent Departinent, Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA _^/-ic-3'n2.j°^ ^ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISOARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BEHCH ; HON'BL@SHRIMANENDRAB6QHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. ii.lW J Writ Petttioa (S) No. 3703/2010 Diliu Kuinar Chauhan State of Chhattisgarh and ofhers Shri Prateek Shanna, counsel for the petitioiicr. Shri Satisb Gupta, Govt. Advocate for fhe State/respondents, on advance copy ORAL-QRDER (Passedon3.8.2010) Heard oa adniission. 2 The petitioner, who appUed for appoiatanent to the post of Peon pursuant to advertiseinent dated 10.3.2010 (Annexure P-3), has filed this petition aggrieved on account of stay of furtfaer process of selection by itapugned order dated 25.5.2010 (Armexure P-1), as also contuiuaace of appointment of dafly wage employees vide impugned order dated 2.7.2010 (Anaexure P-2). 3 Learaed counsel for tbe petitioner subinits that actiag under fhe pressure of Daily W^e Eaiployees' Association, though process of selection was iaitiated, fhe same has been brought to standstiU aad the dailv wage einulovees have been aUowed to coatinue. He further subinits that fhe process of selection could not be stayed oa .fhe ground which have been stated iu flie imDugned order dated 25.5.2010. U:; "i^r"'^^7^^^^^ -2- 4 In W.P. (S) No.3459/2010 (Prem Kwnar Ratre Vs. State ofC.G. & Ors.), soiaewhat similar grievaace was raised agauist order dated 2.7.2010, whereby, daily wage eniployees were contmued. In that case apprehension was raised fhat if fhe daily wage einployecs are allowed to continue aad gaui experience, they inay claim benefit of experience aad seek eifher regularization or claim regular appoiatment. Takuig iato consideration fhat ftie process of selection was stayed aiid not caaceUed aud fhat fhere was no decision eifher to regularize tlie daily wage euiployees nor were such einployees selected, the petition was held preinature, giving Uberty to take recourse to reinedy available under fhe law in case such eventualily anses. 5 In this petition, fhese veiy orders are under challenge. A perusal of order dated 25.5.2010 shows fhat for the time beiiig, fhe process of selection has been kept abeyance, as certam. iaforiaation are bein^ coUected. It would be too early for fhis Court to conie to conclusion wifh regard to the decision which inay ultiinately be taken by the respondent auftiorities, only on the basis of keepiag the process of selection under suspension. 6 The law with regard to a claini for regularization ia fhe case of daily wage appouitment/iUegal appointaient has been setfled by the Supreiue Court ia the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka aad pthers Vs, Umadevi (3) & others. (20061 4 SCC 1. 7 It appears that takiag into consideration the situation that fhe new Session has started, soine interim arracLgeinent has been inade vide onler dated 2.7.2010. However, afl these arraugements are subject to the reeular selectioas to be niade. The process of selection was fflitiated, but has been kept uiider suspeasioa. The iiiterim HIB ^ Frareell arraageinents of contuiiiiag ttte daily wage appointt&ent should not toe contuiued for loiig period aad ttie respondents are obliged under ftie law to inake regular recruitment stricUy ia accordance with the recruitments rules, at fhe earliest. 8 In case, the respondents proceed to act ia a manner to regularize the daily wage einployees agamst fhe law laid dcwn by the Supreiae Court ia fhe case of Umadevi (supra) or caacel fhe process of selection only on fhat ground or contuiue daily wage appoiata^ient, petitioner would be at Uberty to take recourse to appropriate reiaedy under the law. 9 With fhe aforcsaid observations, ftie petition is finally disposed off. ^anSV^-tavi ^aIundraSe -.ar'^iBliliisaasa^ h'^r