^ vl SINStE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. \^(\ /2010 Petitioners / 1. /l. /3. ./y/ ^^/ .S?'".My ^^ ^.'i-^/ V / ' rv:s^ ^•^7 ^ ,.r Tulsiram Sahu, aged about 34 years,S/o Shri Mehtarram Sahu, R/o Kumhi,P.O. Bojtrakud, Tahsil Pandriya, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) Mahesh Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Kuwar Singh Jaiswal, R/o Post Kishun aged Tahsil Pandriya, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) Bharat Lal Sahu, aged about 38 years, S/o Dhaniram Sahu, R/o Village Padkikala, P.0. Dhobghatti, Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) Ridhram Sahu, aged about 36 years, S/o Shivcharan, Village Torla, (Navapara), P.0. Nanapuri, Tahsil Pandriya, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Collector, Kabirdham (Kawardha) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pandhriya Kabirdham Kawardha WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^2. 3. i •^./ A.^y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1864 of2010 Tulsiram Sahu & others VERSUS State ofChhattisgsarh & others RESPONDENTS : WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 23rd day of April, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider them for grant of appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order dated 29/3/1995 (Annexure P/l) the petitioners were selected for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III for the academic sessions 1995. Thereafiter, for the next session, their ser^ices were discontinued. 3. Sole contention ofthe petitioners is that one ofthe similarly situated person namely Ridhram Sahu (petitioner No.4 in this petition also), had approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in the year 1998 and by order dated 9/1/1998, it was directed to consider his case having regard to his past experience and performance. One more person namely Santosh Kumar Kashyap approached this Court in the year 2005. This Court by order dated 26/4/2005 having considered the facts ofthe case, directed Santosh Kumar //!:':^\ t^.~w '% '^N'^ S ^:, ,^^33^'" .;^ ^^^^•1" Kashyap to apply for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and thereafter it was directed to consider his case. 4. The petitioners have preferred the present petition afiter a period of 15 years seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. 5. The High Court ofMadhya Pradesh as well as this Court in the above stated cases have not granted any postitive directions to appoint the petitioners therein on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - III. In the first case it was directed to consider and in the second case it was directed to the petitioner therein to make an application for considerationofhis case. 6. Afiter 2006 the legal position has changed. Now, it is well settled principle of law that a temporary, ^J hoc, employee/daily wager or contract appointee cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and the same was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs Umadevi (3) and Others , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd?, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others^, State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others and State ofKarnataka and Others v. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak and Others ). 7. It is a case where the petitioners have slept over their right since 1995 till date i.e. for about 15 years, hoping or expecting that they may be entitled to the same relief which has been granted earlier to other similarly situated persons. (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 2007 (1) SCC 408 3 (2008) 10 SCC 1 4 (2009)98cc 514 5 (2010) 3 SCC 115 ^ 8. :^ "(S": With regard to laches and delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court, the Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Jal Nigam and another vs. JaswantSingh andanother observed as under: "6. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise ofthe discretionary relief under Article 226 ofthe Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard afiter a couple ofyears on the ground that same reliefshould be granted to him as was granted to person similarly sitated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. A chart has been supplied to us in which it has been pointed out that about 9 writ petitions were filed by the employees of the Nigam before their retirement wherein their retirement was somewhere between 30-6-2005 and 31-7-2005. Two writ petitions were filed wherein no reliefofinterim order was passed. They were granted interim order. Thereafiter a spate of writ petitions followed in which employees who retired in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, woke up to file writ petitions in 2005 and 2006 much after their retirement. Whether such persons should be granted the same reliefor not? 9. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case has been reiterated in State of Punjab & another v. Balkaran Singh7, Tridip Kumar Dingal & Others v. State of West Bengal & Others8 and Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtrc^. 10. Further, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief on any ground, and particularly, seeking appointing on the basis oftheir selection which even otherwise, does not give any statutory 6(2006)11SCC464 7 (2006) 12 SCC 709 8 (2009) 1 SCC 768 9 JT 2009(3)8c 487 -lv^ft ""-^1 ^. *°&.. ' s;''^'""' ^? ^^s.^^ Amn ^ or legal right. (See : Ludhiana Central Cooperative BankLtd. v. AmrikSingh & Others and Union oflndia & Others v. KalfDass Batish & another11.) 11. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe case on hand, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 10 (2003)108cc 136 " (2006) 1 SCC 779