..--'^^ ^..,--^-^ ^^ tts>^ C^7 ^-•f 0<S" . ^E ^).,^" r IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. ^ SS /2009 PETITIONER Kailash Ram Sinha, S/o Kheduram Sinha, aged about40 years, r/o Shankarpur, Ward No.7, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus y RESPQNDENTS tii1 II B M. e y't S^X^'k i * '\^L-^/S. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Public Health , D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Aayun/eda, Yoga Avam Prakritik Chikitsa, Yunani, Siddha Avam Homoeopathy (Aayush), Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) The Distt. Aayurved Officer, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTLOJM OF INDIA S6: ^^ HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH ; BILASPUR Writ Pfctition JS) No. 833 of 2009 Petitioner Kailash Ram Smha Versus Respondents StateofChIiafti^arh&others WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA. (SB: HonTifc Shri Satish K. ^mliotri J.) ^ Shri Ratan Pusty, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for Oie respondente. ORI®R(Oratt (Passed on ttus 9& day ofRebruaiy, 2010) Heard. - By this petitton, ffled under Article 226/227 of the Constitutfon of India, the petitioner chaUeages the legalily aad vaUdity of fbe notification/adverdsement dated 4.9.2008 (Aanexure P/13), whercby applications were invited fliom the el^ibte candidates for 249 posts of • Coiapounder Aurecd. Learaed counsel appearing for fhe- petitioncr submits that llie petitioner belongs to OBC categoxy. He te physfcany handicapped, haviag 48% permanent dlsabilily. The petitioaer •is having Vaidya Vfaharad Certificate fl»m Hindi Sahilya Sammelan. On 15.7.1998 (Annexure P/4) Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaoa invjted appUcations from cligflate candidates for appointment on fhe post of Compouaders. Accordingty, fhe petitfoner appHed and afier due selection - fhc petitionerwas appoiated by order dated 7.1.1999 (Anaexure P/5) on contract basis for a peiiod of three years on a fixed luonthty psy. Thereafter, in view offhe circular dated 8.3.2002 (Aanexure P/6) the tenn of the petittoaer was extended for a further penod of one year whicli expired on 31.3.2003. Subsequentty, by oTdcr dated 21.3.2003 TO (Annexure P/7) fhe term. offhe pettttoner was again extended fiM-two years. The tena of the petifioner was extendcd tinie to tnne for OIBS year by otders dated 21.3.2005, 8.2.2006, 27.4.2007 and 2.7.2008 (AnnexmeP/8 to P/ll). The experfeace certificate dated 24.9.2008 (Annexure P/12) to tfais e-fifect has bcen issued by fhe coaccmed aufhority. Leamed counsel further submits that the petidoner is stUlwprMag on fhe post of Compouader (sft*|tft <tt<Aut<p ) ia. the office of the Distdct Aurved Officer, Rajnandgaon. At preseut thc petitioner has becoine age barrcd for seckmg any ftu-fher appoiutiucnt iu Govenunental oiganizations. On fhe basis of his continuation and csqwriencie, flie petitioner has legitimate expectations for his regularization in serwfce. Now the respondents/aufhorities by the impugaed notificatton/ adverdsement dated 4,9.2008 (Aimexure P/13), havc itutiated process for appointment of 249 regtdar posts of Computider (Aurved). On fhe basis ofhis esq)crience aaid contmuation in servlce, the pctitioner is entifled to be regularized on the post of Coinpounder, as sucbi fhe issue offhe iiapugaed advertiseinent is not sustamable. Leamed counsel appeanr^ for fhe icspondents/State subaiits that llie apponatment of fhe petitioncr -vraa on conteact basis for a pardcular term, as shown in the appointment ordcis. Aftcr corupletion of fhe tena of the contract appointiaent, the petitkmer has 110 tegal right to rcgularization. Having heaid teamed cozmscl appearing for the parties aad haviug perused fhe documente appended (hereto, it is appaoent that fh.c engagemeat offhe petitloner was on conteact basis on a fixed aanfhty wages. Hc was ncver appointed in accordaace wifh. the constitutioaEd scheme of eiiiployinent aud further not ia accordance witti rules f as such fhe petitioner does aot acqiurc aay right to the posfc It M weU setfled principle of taw by a catena of decisions fbat fhe eiaployee appoiated de-hors the constitutional scheme of eiaployment aad not ia accordaace with law, has no right to conttauation, reiastatement or regularization ia serrice (See Secretary, State 6S Karnataka tund others Vs. Umadevl (3j and others1). This is also not fhe case of&e petitioner that he was legaBy appoiated, in accordanee witto. law. It is clearty estabMshed tfaat the appoiatment of the petitioner was not in accordaace wifh law. 6. On fhe issue of legitiaiate expectations ttie principle of law has akeady been settled in Beexetasy, Sltate ot KarnataiM aad ofihers Vs. Umtdevl (3) and others (Supr^, wherein Hon'ble Suprenue Court obsereed as under: *46. ...... Moreover, the uwocatfon of the doctdDue of legitimate expeetation cauaot enabte fhe emptoyces to claim. that fhey inust be inade pertnauent or tfaey must be regularised in fhe semce fhough fhcy had not been setected in tenns of thc rules for appointmeat Thc fsKt tfaat ia certain cs^es fhe Court had directed regularisation of fhe employees involved in fhose cases cannot be iitade use of to foimd a claim based on legitimate expectatfon. Thc argument if accepted would also run coi.mter to thc constitutional inaadate. The aiyuaent in fhat bchalfhas fherefore to be rejected." 7. Pitrfher challeuge of the petitioner to the advcrtisexuent is on the grouad fhat fhe respondents/authorities bave not made aay provisions for grantofweightage to ttiose Compounders, who toave a long experience ofworkiug oa contract appomtment On a queiy asto whether fhcre is any provision ia thc statutoiy rules aad icgulations, 12006(4)SCC1 ssa"B"afe S 'S le'. •u 8. Thakur ^^ leanned counsd for'&e petitioiaer Seasty coacedcs IIiat there is no provisions in. tiie statutory rules and rcgulattons. Thus, not proviidiug for weightage to fhe conteact employces, who have been workmg for a loii^r period, cannot be held aa uncoiistitational. This is a poMcy decision offhe Govertuneut and the same cannot be iaterfered wifh in ordinaiy circmnstance when there is no chaflenge on fhc ground of arbiteadaess, discrunination and unconstitutionalily. The contention ofleamed counsel for fhe petitioner is accordingfy rejected. For the reasons mentioned hjereinabove, I do not find any merit in thc writ petitu)n, wliich desenrcs to be and is dtemlssed accordingly. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge