w? C6) gig/6‘5 BEFORE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JBP. O.A¢ No. ‘ of 199i; APPLICANTS : 1. Panchram Yadav, aged 38 years, S/o Janakram Yadav, Chowkidar, Land Records, District Office, Bilaspum 2° Vishnu Prasad Kaushik, 35 years, S/o Ramjee Kaushik, Chowkidar, Land Recerds, District Gffice‘, Bilaspuru Sm‘t, Vimla Shrivas, 26' years, Wife ef Ram Krishna Shrivas, Chowkidar, Land Records; Bilaspur. i Smt. Sunder Bai, aged 3h years, D/o Vishal Ram Rao‘t, Chowkidar, Land Records, District Office, Bilaspur. 5. Tilak Ram Yadav, aged 26 years, S/o Sidha Ram Yadav, Chowkidar, Lend Records, Bistrict Office, Bilaepuro 6. Pavan Yadav, aged 23 years, S/o Shyamjee Yadav, e Chowkidar, Land Records, District Office, BilaSpur. 7. Ram Prasad, aged 22 years, S/o Bishun, Chowkidar, Land Records, Bilaspur. 8. Santosh Kumar Shanna, aged 32 years, S/e Pachkaud Prasad Shanna, “Handicapped“, Chowkidar, Land Records, District Office, Bilaspur, 9.‘ Chandan, aged 28 years, S/o Mehtar, Chowkidar, Land Records, Bilaspur. / .-.2.. ' V'ERSUS ‘ RESPOMJEMS : 1 a State of Madhya Pradesh, through Revenue Collector, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. The Commissianer , Bilaspura The Collector, Bile snur‘ . AFFLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 y HIGH COURT 6F CHHAT?ISGAR§~B : §iiA§FUR WRIT PETITION {S} NO.923I2005 PETHTIQNEF‘5 Panchmm \{adav arm atheFs Versus RES?§F\EEEW?S 3iaie of MP. & oihers Single Bggch: Hgigie Shri Saiish K. %mihairi! g: §resQn€ :a Ms. Smita Ghai, sounsei fcf ihe peti%i0i1er$. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panal Lawyer for the State. ORAL OQSE? (passed on this 15th dag; of Sgptember, 2009) The petationers. by W3 petitian. seek a éifection from this Cour? i0 ’ihe respondent authorities i‘o ailaw fhem i0 wcrk 0n their respesiive posis am am seek a dii'ection t0 me respcrudenis auéharities in make paymeni 0f arrears of $aiary Since 1%3. (2) Awarding r0 iearnea‘ caunsel for the veritiorrers, the petitiariers have joined on the post m“ Chewkia’ar in t§1e e$iablishmem of Land Recamis err éaily wages baSis in the year 19Q1-92. Learned ceunsei iurrher eubmirs ‘rhar the petitioners rena‘ereci iheir services wiih great sineerity anti nenesriy. However, all of sudden. ihe respendent aurhoriry eraiiy directed ihe petiiioners to stop ihe work with effeei: from 15‘ October, 19%. Before taking the impugned action, no opportuni’ry of hearing has been afforded r0 ihe oeiirioners, which is againsi fhe prinoipies or naiurai justice. The petitioners nave thereafier been reguiariy approaching the respondeni euihorities for considerarion of their respective cases and to aiiow rhem to work bur no action has been ”taken by the authorities. Thus, this petition. (Q\ a; i here'heard learned eounsei appearing tor the parttes, perused the pieadinos and the documents appended thereto. tt is evident that the petitioners have not titett the copies of their appointment orders, whtoh were issued in the year 1§§1-Q2. indisputabiy, there was no ptoper seiection process by inviting the appiications from the eiigibie candidates inv issuing the advertisement. The appointment of the petitioners itseif was iiiegai and not in accordance with the constitutionai scheme of appointment. (4) The $upreme Court in decretary, dtate of harnataka and others Vs. Umadevi i3) and others", observed as under: 1 (2066) 4 8€S 1 , Zr “43 ..... If ii is a contractuai appoinimeni, the appointment somes ta an end at the end of the car—lifact, §f if were ati ewagemé’nt or appamtmem on dailv wages or casual basis the same wauld cama ta an ém wheii 2t §$ disaentiriuéd. Similarly, a tempéraa‘y emplcyee cauld not claim to be made permanent on the exioiry of his term of appslntment. ll: has also to ba Ciafmd that merely beCaLiSe a temporary empleyee er a easual wage worker is eentinued for a time beyond the term 0f his appointmem, he would hat be ehtitled r0 be abserbed in regular service cr maeie permanenr, merely on the etrength of such continuance, if the erlglnal appointment was net made t3'y feltewing e due proceee of selecticn as envleaged by the relevant rutee. lt is net open te the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temperary empteyees whose period ef empleyment has come tc an end or of err hoe employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do net acquire any right ..... 45 While directing that appointments temporary or caeuel, be reguiarized er made permanent, the eeurte ere eweyeet by the tact that the pereen cencerned has worked fer some time and in some cases for a censiderable length ef time. lt is net as if the perecn who accents an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He ascents the employment with open eyes. lt 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, tt would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme or” appointment and to casually take the got View employed that a person should who be has directed temperariiy to be or continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissibie. it the court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the too parties would were not not enable having the equai oourt bargaininq to grant‘any power relief that to that empioyee 7h totai embargo on such casual or temporary empioyment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some peopie who at least get would employment not he gettihg temporariiy even that contractuatly emptoyment or brings casually at, least some succour to them After all innumerable citizens of our vast country are ih search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casuai or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. it is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing'the nature of it and the consequences fiowing from it. in other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his emphyment. Qt is not an appointment m a post in the reai sen5é of the term. Thé ciaim acquired by him in the pgst in which he is tamporafiiy ampioyed or the intereat in that p03t cannot be considéred to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure estabiished, for making regular appointments to avaiiable paste in the serviees of the $tate. The argument that sinee one has been werking for some time in the pest, it wiii net be jest ta diecontinue him. even though he was aware oi the nature of the employment when he firet took it up, is not (sic) Ohe that would ehabie the iettisonirig of the procedure established by law for public employment ahe’ would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as e contractual or eesuel worker and the engagement is not based on e proper selection as reooonised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the eonseeuences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation tor being oontirmett in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper ptooedure for seiection and in oases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory ot legitimate expectation cannot ’oe successtuily adveneed by temporary, oontreetuat or casual empioyees. it cannot atso be held that the State has heid out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionaily make such a promise. t is aiso obvious that the theory cannot he invoked to seek a positive relief of being matte permanent in the post. 48....There is no fundamentai'right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on sentractual basis, to claim that they have a right to he ansorhed in service. . . 3 ('5) The observations macie in Umaoievi tsupra) were quoted with approval in étticiai Liquidator vs. Bayanano anti 6thersz. Their Loro’ships further expiained ’ald‘out the rights of the temporary employees anti regularization. Para 7i? reads as under: “70. The shift in the Court’s approach became more prominent in A. Umerani v, Coop. Societies, decided by a threew’udge Bench, wherein it was heioi that the State cannot invoke Article 162 of the Constitution for \\ (zoos) 10 seer \ reguiarisatian of ihe arapoinimenfs maie in violatkm af ihe mandatory statgtory prevision$." (6) H” fhe appéimmeni of the pwtianef itgeif was iiéegal, the sub$equeni grant of reguiar pay scaie anii reguiarizatim éoes no? chaiige ihe staius 9f ihe employee. We Supreme Cour? m ikeiaek Kama]? $mkar Vs. Urnimi of ina’ia an& ofhersa ebsewea‘ as unaier: “34. Et i$ not a case where appoit‘liment was ifi‘egular. if an appointment is irregular, the same ears be reggerigecé. Ti‘le ceurt may mi fake seréeue mie ef ari irregmarify within the meaning of the provisiene cf the Act. But if an aepemtmem $3 iuegaL it is nan est iii the eye of iaw, which fenders the appomtment i0 be a méliiy.“ G} The $upr‘eme Cmm m mumcme! Sorpm Jaealmsr Vs. Gm Wakash Eubeyé observed as under : “11. The question which, thus, arises fer coneieei’aiion, would be: is there any distinction between “irregular appeintmeni" and "illegai appeintmen’r"? ‘r'he disiinciion between the two terms is apparent in the event the appeintment is made ie reiel eieregard ef tne eonsiituiionai echeme as else ihe recruitment ruies framed by ihe employer, which is Siate within the meaning 9f Article 12 of the Genetitution of indie, the recruitment weuid be an iiiegel One; wnereee inere may be eaees where} eitheugh, substantial eemplience with ihe censtitutienal Scheme as else the rules hes been made, ihe appointment may be irregular in the eense that some previsiens of the rules might net have been strietiy adhered ta.“ {8) emptying the weii settlee' principles of the iaw as laie down by the Hon’hie Supreme Sourt to the facts of the present case. the petitiehers are net ehtitled to any relief, as the petitiehers were appeinted on daiiy wages basis and, as such, no reiiet as hrayeoi‘ for to aiiow the petitioners to work can be granted. r?) ln View of iéregoing, the petition is liahie to he ano is hereby dismissed. Sd/- i iSatish K. Agnihotri t Judge " 3 .i r i§oo73 me?) 4 1 scc sec 37s} 54}