^ 1,^. 2N TOIE H*P*STATE AmiNISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL/J^BAI^'tJR. Qf ^(^^^Qr 1?\ ^ k-vcl ^>plJ.capt(s)?l^Vi1ay Kumar Rao s/o Nohaa Bao S/o Shanker Nagar^ £?uxg»: 2<»Xhoma^lal Sahu s/o Shrl' Shivlal Sahu.^ 'B/oGra^ &-Post- Machanctar 3,'Shanteerlal $oni s/o .Shri Shiv Prasa-d Soni, Shantlnagar-.Bhilai- 3». 4|Nahesh Vlshwatearma^ R/o GrB^^Khaprl^ Po^t Of fic©»Jevara , Sirsa»Dtstt-Oirg».: 5..S t,Hi3^Bai wc^o late Shri Pattoolal .Soni^ Graoa and Post-©enetara,Distt-Durg^. 6»;Natwar Kunnar TxNari^ s/o B^R^Ti^ari;^ Oram and Post- 3a'nefcara^OAstt-DU£U^ 7.;B»Narayao -Rso, s/o ^hri B.Xondeya, Harij.an '^rd/Oistt-Qurg^ 8,?Sunil Kumar Mishra, s/o Mannalal Mishra^ S/o Gayanagar,;Distt-;Ourg* 9<»|%run Kumar Saha^ 's/o lafce. Shri Pajooram- Sahu^. G/a Gram' and .Post-Oargao-n^Oiatt- Ou.cg,! lO^adhuka^ar^ s/o Umedas sa.hn ^ . i^/o Gram ©rla.^Post- Hoham .Nagar^ Qistt~Qurg,i ll.Yugal Kislior Sahtt 96 ^hri Jeedhram Sahu, Gra{a~ Kharatpai Vikaskhand^saiad. 12|S^lvk;m)ar Sahu s/o ^ri Punaxo®Sahu^ Graro -.Patwarl,Post~ Parsadee,Tah".Patan^ Mstt~0urg,| ' 13»^ffit»MongraBaj. q/o Shri lakhanlal, Clvii Hospltai^Boaeta.ra, 14»Balazare Veima^'s/o Shri S.i.taram , Gx-am-Khera, P&st-.Kanha.iya Distt-Ou^^ 15«^Rt»failochana Stoende ,Aausachit Jati, Shanfcer Nagar st?ard.No^4^1stt-4,)urg»! -2- ^— '^ ^ -2- VE R 3U S l|State of Madhya ^ra^ssh through Secretary,Department of Publlc Heaittt and welfare, '%}i^^. 2.Cbief Medical and Health Offlcer^ ^urg^ 3»%e Collector^Qistt-Durg^ 2>ucg»| fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 288 of2005 APPLICANT(S) RESPONDENTS Vijay Kumar Rao & 14 others. VERSUS State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others. SB: Honlble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K.Bhaduri^ Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDERLORAL) (Passed on 11th day of December, 2009) rZ ^ By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing ofthe order dated 15.5.1990 (Annexure A/15) whereby the appointment of the petitioners, who were working on daily wages basis, was cancelled. The petitioners further seek a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue in service. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners were appointed by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Durg on daily wages basis on the post of Cleaner, Waterman, Chowkidar, Ward Boy, Aaya, Sweeper etc. in the year 1990. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 15.05.1990 (Annexure A/15), the services ofthe petitioners were disengaged. Thus^ this petition. Learned counsel appearmg for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without assigning any reason. According to the petitioners, the appointment orders were issued by the ChiefMedical & Health Officer, Durg, whereas the removal order was passed by theCollector without any jurisdiction. Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. During their appointments, there was some illegality. Shri Bhaduri further submits that in a similarly situated matter^ some illegal appointments were cancelled against which, the aggrieved persons approached the State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. ..^STSS^ /^% - ^J^ > 626/93 which was dismissed by order dated 15.12.1993. The same was also challenged before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 13481-86-94. In the said SLP, the decision of the Tribunal has been upheld. Thus, the present petition may also be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the appointments were made by the Chief Medical & Health Officer and the impugned removal order has also been passed by the said authority. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order of removal has been passed by the Collector, is noticed to be rejected. 6. Even otherwise, the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment as without any advertisement/ examination or interview, the appointments were made. The appointment of the petitioners was purely on temporary basis on daily wages. 7. It is a trite law that the daily wager cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See : Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , OfficialLiquidator v. Dayanand and others^). 8. In view of the foregoing, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. — Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 22007(1)SCC408 3 (2008) 10 SCC 1