:FNI In the Honble High Court ofChhatishgarh at Bilaspur fC.G.) W.P.No................^^./..2005 ,* <?'^.§' Petitioner 7 Dr. Subodh kumar Dewangon aged 33 years son of Shri Ved Nath Dewangon, ~ , Assistant Professor, (Contract System adhoc Appointee) Govt. College Balod, Tahsil Balod District Durg (C.G.) Versus i[£i:;^g?§^ Resppondent %"^ \ 1 The State Govemment of CUhattishgarh Through the Secretary, College Education Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Govt. Science,Arts & Commerce College,, Balod Tahsil Balod Distt. Durg (C.G.) Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia r /- H!GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH ; B!LASPUR PETiTIONER WRIT PET1TION N0.576 OF 2004 Homan Sinah RESPONDENTS Versus State Government of Chhattisgarh & Another And W.P. Nos.577, 572 & 2346 of 2004 and W.P.i'io^.404 & 298 of 2005 (Writ Petitions under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of india) Sinqle Bsnch : Hon'bie S'hn Satish K.Agn'hotri. J. J^—, Present:- Shr', Somkant Verma and Shri Chsndresh Shrivastava. counse! for the resDective oetitioners. Shri W.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Go'A. Advocate for the State. ORDER CORAL) (Passed on th's 15'" dav of Februan/. 2010) 1) Since W.P.Nos.576. 577. 572 & 2346 of 200'l and W.P. Nos. 404 & 298 of 2005 invoive a common auestion of law as we!! as common facts and. as suc'i, a!i ti'e oetitions are beina considered toaethe' a~d disoosed of by this corpmon order. 2) Bv these oetitions, the petit'oners seet a direction to the respondsnt authorities to considertheir respective cases for reaularization of their services from the date of Shei'- inrtisl appointment on daily wages basis. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners s'jbmits thal init'ai'y Shs petttioners were appointed m the rsspondent department Tor a period of 89 days on daiiy wages, thereafter the said period was extended . from time to time, but tili date the services of the petitioners have not been reaularized in soite of the fact that the v/ork and conduct or the oetitioners are found sat'sfactorv. Thus. thsse Detitions. 4) On the othe' hand, learned counse! aoDeanna for the State sub'nits that the oetitioners v/ere not aooointed m accordance w'ith the constitutiona! scheme of empioyment, as ttie petit'ioners v/e'e appointed on daily wages basis. Even the services of the ciaily 'ivager could be term'nat.ed at anv ooint of time v/rthout anv notice. and thus. the oetitioners are not entitled to anv re!ief. 5'i ! have hea'd Isarned counsel aooearinq for tha oartiss. os'used the oleadings and the documents aooendsd thereto. 6) The issue invoived in the^resent oet'tion is no !onger res inte'sra as the Suoreme Court. in a cal?na of dec's'ons has made c'ear that the emiaiovees aDRointed on daily ,vaaes basis have no riqht *.o con'Sin'je in service or reauiarization. Th" aDOQintmgnt itseif is cfe hors the constltutiona' scheme of emDlovment. 7~) Adt"ittediv. the oetitioners were appointed on daily waqes basis and not in accordance wth the constitutionai scheme of emplovment. The appointrsent of the petitioners was pursiy on temporary bss's. A temporarv. sd hoc emptoyse'oaily v/gger cannot cla'm reau'arization. continuance or rsinstatement 'n sen."ce on ths basis cf appointrrsent, which was tempol'ary and not in accordance wrth law and the same was de hors the constitutionai seheme of emDioyment. (See Secretarv. State of Karnateka and Othe's vs. Urr'adevi (3] and Others'. Indian Drugs & Phannaceusca!s Ltd. v. Workmen. indian Druas Si Phsfmsscyjtfcssls L^.A. Offscfaf Lsc?u!dstcr \/. Dsvsnand snd Q^ar^ gn^ Ste?0 of Punisb snd Othsfs v. Sun!t ^nah and Qih^rs}, ^L.-Ub) ^t i5Lf\»i i - 2007 !1) SCC ^08 3 <"-)nns\ -in cr^r^ -i ^2039) 9 SCC 514 6QQS-0--6 uo papioep QQQZ p g^eS'ON (S) dM ^ B03S-2-9euQpep.:03pcoQ3,04t7ei. 'ON ',S)a'Mc 60C3-7-8Z uo pspissp gocs ^o £i?zi.'CN(s5 dAA 5 eouepjoose ui p&tUicdde }ou 'sjs5e/u\ f.ivep eij-, p si-ios pszyeinBej S8L, t-eL..UJSAOQ 8}3i9 e^ ^l,, }eq} p&Ajesqo enss| jBjiLUiS 4i|/u\ tjuijeep 8jiu/n ' ^iSLifOU'y' y LfJBQSIjfSijij^) ,0 SfSfg 'A /K&d ^SiilBg Lii ynOQ SILjj. (ui. 'SOOZ-S-SZ P®}epjepjo s}! epiA •+inoo SILI} Aq LiS>iBi MSIA ei|( Buiiujye }jno3 sue-dng si,+ Aq pessiiusi.p osje se/u\ iiQiii/A 'is.i'sqio •? WBDSisstjifo }Q a;e}S 'A i,suis aefejd sjpuas^osi 8002/06 IZZ 'ON '.O.S'd'TS buisq uoiiiied eAB®-][eioeas Duiji, Aq ',-'noo e-uejans eLj+ oi dn U6i|e< se/A jei,euj sqi ••(SUiB6esjSL,i 'L,3ueg 8|DUis eL;-, Aq psssed jepJO ei,i &UiLUjij,e SOOS-fr-6Z P8'tSP •isPJO /'-ci :tlno0 Sllit 10 LiOUSg UOISIA'.Q 6L|1, Aq pSSSItUSip SB/A L,0!lj,U 'gOOZ 1° -i.ZOZ 'ON (y=i) 'V'fWGUi°<i jeeddBiu/tfk e pej-6,sjfi uisjeL,+.9uo,i,,8a e^i 'tsjans) 4SLfJ'S uviQ^cf iS^pU^iUOQ u; poSScu JopJO 044 4SUi5EjV ..^'$4^0 ^ tf ^V ^O s^£^S' ^4-1 'A 4yu7$' CiS^GU^ £rfpuSlu'0$ pUS ..fQi^OUy y i^sQt^Si^ij'^ fO SjBJS 'A SJ3i,^Q ^ euue/i jeiun^ (ue/aU^sy ui ^"03 siq^ Aq p&iBJSiisj useq seq i-noci eiiisjens SLJ', Aq uiviop piej oi}sj aAoqe eqi ,,'eetUioddB gi|t uo tLjSu />uB jeiuos lou p|no/A OLUSS eiit 'suosisa ps.j.ijsnis suotue uoiii'isaLuco jsdojd e jeye pue seini jueAssej eqi }0 SLUJ6; Ul Sl }U6lUlUtOddB eij? ssejun {sq} pioi; 0} Ajuesssosu seq 'Asei ©41u/«\op fiytAei sjjijM ynoo ssq} '}usiuto|dLU8 siiqnd j&^ SLiseLjos &L., Ljii/tfi }ue',sisuoo •eio^ej8L|^ •uoiiniQsuco SIQ p QI, ei0!pv tW.tA pesj fs. a!s!W iss Siusiuajinbsj siji Lj}i/i\ Aidiuos 01 pseu Stj} ^O 6Ui>|00].SAO SUl Bu;japjo u; jo f). ejOiyv.,0 uoiteioiA e Butpjoqdn jepjo ue Buissed luoy pejqesip sq Ajuieyso pjno/A ijnoo e 'uoitn%SL!oo jno ^o sjoo &ui si A\S[ p ejm 941 S3uis pue uosin+jisuoo jno ^o ejntes^ oiseq e sj luauitojdiue oiiqnd ui Aiijenbs ,o e;nj SLJ~, oi eousje^pB -,ELii jssjs si}! 'snqi, :Jspun (6 se psA.esqo '(ejans) sAspei-'n u| ynoo 8i-;ejan9 eqi 'siseq ssciem A|iBp uo oui^jJo/A sssAojdLue eqi p uo!}esue|n6aj 01 pjeBsj LjiiftA (9 with the constltut'onai scheme of emo'ovment, this Court csnnot issue a positive direction to legaiise the illegal appointment on the ground that certain 'iitega! appointments have been leaalizedi'reciuiarized by the emptever. 11) !n this context, the Supreme Court. in fi.shok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India". obser/sd as under: '34. l*. is not a case \vhete aDDoinsment was irregu'ar. !f a" appointment is 'rreguisr, the same can be regu!arised. The Court mav not take serioys note of an irreguiarity within ths meaning of the provsions of the Act. But i* an apDointmertt is i!!eaai, rt 's non est in the eve of law, which fenders the appo!nt'"e-,t *o be a nutSity." 12's Furthsr. in -Sfste ^f Punfab & s,r?o^?©ry. SLmlt S1nrih Ss. Cthsrs^, ths Supreme Cou't rsaff^med the above rstio in ths ToHowing terms: ''39, We would, howevsr. before oartina make an observation that e submission of the iearned counse' that oniy because some juniors have got ths bensfit, the ssme by itself cannot be a ground for extending the same bener.t to the resocndents herein. !t is now wel! 'Known that the equaiity clause contained in Articie 14 should be invoked oniy v/hsre t'ne parties are simi!ar!y s'tuatsd and where orders passed in their Tavour are iega! and not iiiegai. It has a positive concept. 13) In view of foreqoing, fo' the 'easons stated hereinabove and app'ying the wel! settled onncioles of !aw to the facts of the present case wherein the petitioners were appointed pure!y 01 teiriDorary bas's. they are not entitlsd to any re!lsf. 14) !n the result. fie writ petit'ions are dismissec!. 15) There sha!! b° no order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ('2007') 4 SCC 54 9(2009)9SCC51d 11)1; IIKI