IN THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF MADHYA PRADESH, RAIPUR M.P. APPLICANT: WC§)262q/@” 1 /’,.. ‘ €59 0.A.No. 5L5 of 1998 TEJ RAM SAHU, of RESPONDENTS: age’ 36 years son Shri Bhakla Ram Sahu, resident of village Mopka, Post Block (E Tahsil VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH through the Secretary to the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh Tribunal Welfare Department Bhopal . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER; Tribunal Development, Raipur M.P.» THE DISTRICT ORGANIZER, Schedule Caste Development, Raipur M.P. THE CIRCLE ORGANIZER, Tribal Development Kasdol, District Raipur M.P. . ... .. Mopka, I Bhatapara, District Raipur M.P. DETAILS OF APPLICATIDN w ‘ @3 Tej Ram Sahu Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2639 OF 2005 Petitioner Versus State of Madhya Pradesh'(Now Chhattisgarh) & Others (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K.’ Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri Rakesh Anthony, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 02” day of Febmafy, 201 1) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.10.1995 (Annexure A—5), whereunder, the petitioner aiongwith two others have been removed from the post of Chowkidar on the ground that the appointment was no't legai and there was no sanctioned post availabie for them. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that some other person nameiy Siyaram was appointed as Chowkidar also on 30.4.1994. Thus, the petitioner shouid be allowed to continue on the post. 3. On perusal of the documents, it is found that the petitioner was appointed by order dated 30.4.1994 on temporary basis against the post of Chowkidar at the monthly‘rate fixed by the Collector. it was further stated that services of,the petitioner may be removed at any time without any notice. 4. Be that as it may, appointment of other person namely Siyaram by the same order does not change the character of appointment of the petitioner, as they were also removed from the service by the impugned order dated 4.10.1995, on the ground of same being illegal. 2 w ‘ Law is well settled on this point that‘ appointment of a person on daily wages and temporary basis, without inviting applications from the similarly situated candidates and without going through the selection process, is illegal. The appointment is dehors the constitutional scheme of employment and as such, no direction can be issued to reinstate, regularize or continue the service of such employees, who are appointed dehors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See: Ashek Keisha & Another v. State of C.G. & Another’) In view of foregoing, there is no merit in this case. Accordingly, the writ petition is'dismissed. No order asto costs. WWWwMm‘: Sd/a a . Satish K. Agnihotri J Judge ’ 2010(3) C.G.L.Jt 309 Fem _. l l