^ COIIRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitioii No. 16$2 of2006 : Cluidrabhanu Rana S/o Bijani aged about 45 years, R/o Vilb.ge Bijrabhatha (Sankrajonk), District Mahasamund (CG). 1. Tlie State of Cbhattisgarh Tlwnijgli the Secretary, Departmeat ofForest, DKS B'nawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Head ChiefCc.nscrvator ofForest, Raipur (CG). 3. The ChiefConsei'vator ofForest, Raipur (CG). 4. Divisional Forest Officer, District Mahasamund (CG). 5. The Forest Range Ofiicer, Basna, District Mahasamund (WRIT PETlTION IJl-roER ARTICLE iibl/.tl OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) SB: Hon'feie Mr. Satish K. Agmhofai, J.) Present : Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate forthe petitione;-. Shri Satish Oupta, Govt. Advocate forlhe State/respondents. 1. The netitioner was aoDointed as Sec'.Tit'.' Guard in Forest Denartnient in the year 1987 on daily'.vages basig. The services of the petitioner was disensa^cd on s^vera! timcs ^A''itho*jt their beiii^ continuation in sen/iee on dailyvages basis. The Services of the petitioner was again engaged on 09.09.2000, in the saiiie capacity, on temporary basis. 2. By this petitioiT, tlio petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the case ofthe petitioner for regiilarization ia the liglit ofthe circnlar dated 09.01.1990 issued by the M.P. Govt. He fiirther subtiiits tbat under the said circular tlie then State ofM.P. has regiuarized all the iabours working oa dailywages or ad hoc basis on 3 1.12.1998. 3. Tlie petitioner has prefeTred this petitioi.1, seeking comptiance ofthe above stated cireuiar. All the dccisi.ons difectiiig regiilarization ofthe employees appointed, dehors the eo"stitirtioa scfaeine of employment and not in aeeordance with !aw, iiiipliedly stand ovemiled, in view ofthe decision of the Constitiition Bench of Supreaie Court of India i" the matter of -^ fi?" u^-l/,•-iii-/-ft'ff»^r C'+*ff-f~t o,-^- tt;:rf>t-<itlt^»I/-'1i '•(•^tr^ t'^rfrlt/i**n ~i7n TTw|t~t T'ISQITII 'tipli ^i^iitij^ t.fiiii^ v/j. iY<iAAl<S.L<U'u,i, iiiiu %^rLliwiO V O. ^iiiti. i^CVi t.iji.it.t tjUidi? ^^U!V1 (4) SCC !}. The HonUe Supreme Court has laid dowii c'ear enunciatioa of law wlueh was followed later on m various decisions by the Supreme Court. 4. Inthe case ofSecfetai'y, State ofKa'natato aiid Ot!ie2~s Vs. Uma Devi aiid others (Supra) the Supreme Court observed. as under: "Thus it is clear tliat adlierence to the nile of equality in public employment is a basic feature ofour constitution and since the rule nf iaw ja fhe core of our Co'istitirtioii^ a court wouid certatnly be disabled from passuig au order uphoiding a vioiation ofArticle 14 or m ordering the overiooking of tfae need to comply with tlie requtrements ofArticie 14 read with Aiticle 16 ofthe Constimtion. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for pub!ic employmeiit, t!iis Court whiie laying do\vn the iaw, has necessariiy to hoid that un!ess tfae appoiiitment is in temis ofthe reievant niieg and after^a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not eoirfer aiiy riglit. on the appointee........." 5. In Ihe li^it ofthe above, flie petitioner caimot claim any regulai-ization or reii'>statement m service on the basis of liis aooointmeiit which wag temporary aiid not in accordance with !aw. 6. Accordmgly, tlie '.wit petition is dismissed. No order asto eosts. >ahu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge