c^ \^S-j w; ^-s^ ^' ?<6' AS1 \ //!// ^s^ ^^^ Z^°<'^ \v^^:'.. ••a': G... ^fc..'·· AasharamGond S/o age about 53-years Teh.-Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) State Govemment C.G. 2. Conservator of Forest «! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3604 OF 2010 PETITIQNER Aasharam Gond RESPONDENTS Versus State Government C.G. & Others (Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri S.P. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General with Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 26th day ofApril, 2011) i.~. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a relief on the basis of circular dated 5-3-2008 (Annexure - P/3) wherein it is provided that the daily wagers/ad hoc employees who have worked for 10 years they may be considered for regularization. 3. Shri Kale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages and he has been working regularly since 1-1-1989 to 31-12-1997 for more than 10 years. Thus, on the basis of circular dated 5-3-2008 the petitioner is entitled to be regularized in service. 4. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing with Shri Ajit Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, submits that even the circular dated 5-3-2008 does not contemplate regularization of illegally appointed persons, but, it was regularization of irregularly appointed employees, as per the mandate of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others . 5. This is the well settled principle of law that if any appointment is made without following the due process of law, by not inviting applications from all the eligible candidates, the said appointment is illegal and c/e hors the constitutional scheme of employment. 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 '•^. w I i 1 a '^sis9!S'a% B 1 '•iSgfy'' y g ••'^1'/ '''t^. "^i^C ""•«K3W^' 7. Gowri In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has considered the issue and held that the appointments made de hors the constitutional scheme of employment as illegal. In para 53 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Umadevi (3) (supra), it is clearly stated that the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts. . In. that event, only the irregularly appointed persons, who have worked against the sanctioned posts, may be considered for regularization, not the illegally appointed employees. (Also see: Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others3). Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^