2 /^) P ^o-]3M]S^_ SEFORB fHE HLP. STA'iS ADMEHIsrRATIVE 2RIBUNAL, JABAt^UR O.A. Ho.^>(^Cj'^- /95 APPLICAKT RESPOEfrENTS Suresh Prasad Gupta son of Shri Dwari<a Pd. Gupta, -aged abouf 41 years, occupatAon serviee, M.A., Asslsfeant Teacher, at Gangpur Bloclc & Tehsll Kaiiardba, Dls&t. Rajnanagaon, M.p. Versus 1 State of Madhya PfiadeSh through the Secretary. Bepartaent of School Educatlon, Bhapal, M.P. 2 I^.Dlrector of Edacafeion, KaK'ardha* Eistt. Rajaandgaon 3 Jfc. Director o£ Edacation, EdiicatSon Blvlslon, Durg, (M.P.) APPLISTATION UHDER SECTIGN 19 OP THS_ABM:INI_S'ERATIVE 1RIBGNALS ACT 1985 w^ '<>.. /// lii.; 1"; AP^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (s) No. 1201 of 2005 Petitioner : Suresh Piasad Gupte Versus Respondents State of Maihya I>fadesh & others Slagle Bench: HonTile Mr. Justfce Satteb K. AffiUtotrI. Shri N.L. Shrivastava, coimsd for fhe Petitioaer. Slui Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyer for the Respondents/ State. ORAL ORDER (I Ith Juty, 2006) Accordiag to the petitioaier, tfae petitiipncr was appointed by order dated 27.1.1983 (Anncxure A/2) by the Maaagmg Coixunittec of tUe Rrivate Higher Secondaiy School, Piprya, Kawaidha, District Rajiiandgaon on teinporaiy basis, wtierein the condition of tbe appoiutatent was that the service offhe pctitioner could be tenninated without assigiuiig auy reason by giving oxie inonfh tioticc or pay in. lieu ofiiotice. The petitioaer was iiever confirmed on the post of Upper Diwfeion Teacher appointed by fhe Nagrik ShikshaSamittee, Piprya. The said school was takcn over by fhe State Govenunent oa 27.8.1987 (Aimexure A/3) and fhe service of the pctitioner was also taken over by the State Govenam.ent by order dated 20.2.88 (Anuexuic A/4) on the post ofAssistant Teacher, keeping ia view his eligibiUty. Leamed couasel appearing for the petitioiiersubmits that some otfaer teachers naxuely CUioturam, Kapfl Narain Sharma and Phs^ua Ram 8. (^} ChandraKlar, who haye been apponited after the petitioner, have been absorbed on the post of Teacher and ttie petitioiier, who was appoiated earlier on teiaporary basis, was absorbed on the post of Assistant Teacher. Leamed counsel for the petitfoncr subinits that fhis ainouats-fo^discrinunatiDn aad violatioa of Articles 14 aad 16 of tfae Constitutton of India. Leamcd counsel for fhe petitioner submits fhat fhe petitioner is an experienced teachcr, fherefore, he should be considered on. the post ofTeacher at the pay scale of Rs. 1290 - 2040. I have heard leanued coui^el for fhe parties and perusal thc records appended to fhe petition as weU as the retum. It is evident that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Upper Dwision Teacher on the pay scale of Rs. 740 - 1180 by order dated 27.1.83 (Aunexure A/2) on teniporary basis. The petitioner was never confinned on the pay scale of Rs. 740 - 1 180 It is well settled princq>le of law that aa eiaployee has no right to the post until the said eiuployce is confinned on the said posfc The petitioner was iiever coufirmed on fhe poat of Upper Division Teaclier. The petitioner was absorbed by the State Gcwenunent vide order dated 20.2.88 sxa. the better pay scalc at Rs. 975 - 1650 and as szich he can not be clanned to be prejudiced and has suffered financial loss. I am uaable to accept fhe subinission inade by learaed couusel for the petitioner-as fhe petituner has no right ou the post of Upper Dwision Teacher for waut of confinnatfon on fhe sakl post The Supreme Court ia the case of 8. Maiayaaa Vs. Md. Alunednlla Kltan & others (2006 AIR SCW 2872) has observed in para 19, as under:- Z^l 9. "19 .........itis contended that regularisatma is the same as confinnation ia service, aad therefore, Uen would operate fi?Dia the said date. We are afraid that we cannot accept this coatention in the face of clear aufhorily to the contiary, to wlueh we have already referred... ...?... For the reasons stated-above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. •Sd/- "" Babhi :3i1