"^^?^ /y^ {% 1ss€ t^ fe5\^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.822 OF 2004 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. 2. Satish Sharma, S/o Vishnu Prasact Sharma, aged about 25 years, R/o Nand Bhawan, Main Road, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (CG). Versus District & S@ssjons Judge, Durg (CG). Regjstrar, Hjgh Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. OA^nt petition under Article 226/227 of*he Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Manoj Paranjape, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 12th day of September, 2008) The petitjoner was appointed by orcfer dated 23-8-2002 (Annexure-P/1) in the District Court, Durg, against the vacancy ereated on account of deputation of one employee namely, Shri P. Durga Rao, Assjstant Grade-IJ! to High Court of Chhattfegarh. The appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary against the vacancy of Shri P. Durga Rao. Depiitation of Shri Rao came to an end on his repatriation to hfe parent department i.e. District Court, Durg. The appointment of the petitioner came to an end automatically on 12-2-2004 (Annexure-P/6). 2) The Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka andothers Vs. Umadevi (3) and others1. observed in para 47 as under: "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casuat worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the refevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made onty by fottowing a proper procedure for se.'ection and in cases concemed, in consultation with the 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 .^rt^^'S. iS^"" .-...»<.^& ''••fc ^y^ Public Service CommJssJon. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfutly advanced by temporary, contractual or casual empSoyees. It cannot also be held that tiie State has held out any promise while engaginQ these persons either to continue them where they are or to make fhem permanent. The State cannot constihttionalty make such a promise. tt is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post." 3) The Supreme Court in the matter of R.S. Garg vs. State of U.P. and others observed in para 16 as under: "16. Even the State cannot make rules or issue any executive instructions by way of regularization of service. !t would be in violation of the Rules made under Articte 309 of the Constitution of India and opposed to ttie constitutional scheme of equafity clauses contained in Articte 14 and 16." 4) Again the Supreme Court in the matter of Surincter Prasad Thyari vs. U.P. Rajya Krishj Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others , observed m para 35 s»sunder: "35. Equal opportunity js the basic feature of our Constitution. Public emptoyment is repository of the State power. Certain status and powers emanate from public employment." 5) In the matter of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutjcals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.4, ttie Supreme Court observed as under: "34. Thus, it is well s^Hed that there is no right vested in any daily-wager to seek regularisaSion. Regularisation can only be done in accordance v/ith the rules and not d©horsthe mtes. !n £. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala this Court held that there can be no regularisation dehors the rules. The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.) v. State of MahsrashlrQ, Union of fndia v. Bfshamber Dutt. The drrection issued by fhe Services Tribunal for reguiarizing ttie services of persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance wjth the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working regulariy for a tong time. 35. In Surinder Singh Janwal (Dr.) v. Stste of J & Kit was held that ad hoc appointment does 2 (2006)63cc 430 3 (2006) 7 SCC 684 4 (2007) 1 SCC 408 fk: ^ ^^ ^ ';- ^^^A^^ not give any right fw reQularization as regularization js governed by the slatutory rutes." 6) Further, in the matler of State of U.P. and others vs. Desh Raj the Supreme Court observed as under : "7. Whatever may be the import andpurport of such regularisation rules, m view of tfie recent Constitution Bench decision of this Court In Secy., State of Kamataka v. Umadevi (3), it 'is now well settled that the appointments, if made in violation the constitutional scheme of equality as enshrined under Artiotes 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. would be rendered iilegal and, thus, wsid sb ifwffo. No regularisation rules, therefore, could have been rnade by the State of Uttar Pradesh in derogation of the statutory or constitutionai scheme." 7) Applying the weli settled principtes of the law Jaid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facte of the present case, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No orcter asto costs. 8) Consequently, M.(W.).P.No.745/2004 stands disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (2007)18cc257