HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUE Writ Petition No. 2909 of 2003 Pctitioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. MaMk Ram, S/o Shri Thaadaram, Caste- Marar, Sub caste- Patel, aged about 33 years, R/o vm. Gram Paachayat Manakoiii, P.S. Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Tlirougli the Secretary, Department of Gram Pasichayat Maatralaya, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Raipur (C.G.) Additional CoUector, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C-.G.) Ghasia Siagh Paikra, Saq5ao.ch, Vitlage Paachayat Maharaji, Vikas Khand - Kasdol, District - Raipur (C.G.) Secretaiy, Vfflage Paiichayat Matiaraji, Vikas Khaad- Kasdol, District - Raipur (C.G.) Maaharao. Lal Patel, S/o Shri Maliesh Ram Patel, Vffl- Kowatal, Vikas Khand Kasdol, Distiict Raipur (C.G.) WRiTPEni'ONJJNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: HonTsle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) State. Ms Renu Kocher, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Ms Smitha Ghai, Paael Lawyer fbr the respondents No. 1 to 3/ ORDBR (Passed on this 26th Day ofMarch, 2009) Witii fhe consent of learaed counsel appearmg tbr fhe parties, the niatter is heard finaUy. 1, Leamed counsel appeariag for fhe petitioner submits fhat flie respondents No, 4 aad 5 issued aii adverdsement for appoiatoieiit on fhe post of Contract Teacher, Grade-III in G^ram Paachayat Maharaji, Block- Kasdol, Distdct Raipur. The petitiouer bemg fully eMgible appUed for the post. After completion of tlie selection process a merit llst (Aniiexure P/ 2) was prepared. The respondents No. 4 aad 5 called total fhree caadidates for iaterview, includiag tlie petitioner aad respondent No.6. 2. It is aUeged ttiat the interview was held without foUowiag due procedure of law. The respondent No.6 was awarded ±uUmarks i.e, 25, whereas the petitioner was awarded 'zero' mark in fhe mterview. The petitioner is having a B.Ed. certificate hence he is more meritorious than the respondent N0,6. Bemg aggneved, the petitioner filed a coinplaint on 3.9.2003 (Annexure P/4) but no action was takeu. Hence the petitioner has tiled tliis petition. 3, Learned counsel appeadug for the respondents/State subinits that the petitioner has a reniedy of filiag appeal under the provisions of Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recxnitiaent aad Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. Without avaiUng that reniedy of filiag aa appeal, the petitiouer has filed this petition. She further subinits that the scheme of awarding niarks is provided vide memo dated 4.8,2003 (Axmexure R/l), whereia for the kaowledge of local language 25 iciarks is provided- 4. I have heard learaed counsel appeadng for tlie parties, perused tfie pleadiags aad dociunents appended thLereto, 5. The period of contractual appoiiitaient is not spect&ed ui the petition. Learned counsel appeadng for the petitioner is not in a position to state the period of contractual appouitment. The petition is vague, without giving the precise details of fhe contract period and the date of appointment. It is held that fhe contract appointoient i§ a tenure appouitment. Unless it is specified what was the period of the contract, whether it has been over or it is still contiauing and as such, it is not possible to pass any order. Even otherwise, the contract appointmexit is not m accordance with law. The contract appoiatment cannot be held as proper aad legal appointment (see Secretary, State of / Karnataka and others Vs« Umadevi (3) and others & Ofliclal Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others) 6, It is trite law that a candidate, even if, he is successtul in the select Ust, has no iadefeasible right fo appoiatinent If the petitioner has no indefeasible right to the appointnient, no writ caa be issued directmg the respondents/authorities to give appointment to the petitioner or aay other persons. 7, In the case of Shankarsaii Dash Vs. Usaioa of India1, itwas held by fhe HonT3le Suprem-e Court ttiat "it is not correct to say that if a nuinber ofvacancies are notified for appouitaient and adequate nuaiber of candidates are not found fit, the successful caadidates acquire aa indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied,^ 8. It was subsequently IbUowmg in Ludhiana Cetttyal Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Amrik Sixigh aad oth.ers!2, whereia it was held by the Honyble Supreme Court that "even othenvise, it is well settled by now that a person whose uame is said to jSnd place ia a select panel has no vested right to get appoiiited to the post ia spife of vacancies existiag." 9. Further, m Union of Xndia and others Vs. KaU Dass Batlsh aud aaother3, the Hon'ble Supreiae Court held that "inere inclusion of a candidate's name in the selection Mst gave hirn no right, aad if there was no right, fhere could be no occasion to maintaia a writ petition for enlbrcement ofa non-existiag right." 1{(1991)3SCC47} 2 [ (2003) 10 SCC 136} 3 {(2006) 1 8CC 779} ^S^^^s^^^^m-f^-s-s: "^ 10. 11. 12. 13. Thakur Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seeretary^ State of Karaatafea and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others4 held that tf it is a contractual appointment, the appoiataient comes to an end at the end of tlie contract, if it were aa engageiaent or appointxnent on daUy wages or casual basis, fhe same would come to an end when it is discontiaued. The High Courts actiag under Article 226 ofthe Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorptiou, regulad^ation, or pennanent continuance unless the recndtnieBt itself was niade regularly and ia terms of fhe constitutional schenie, This Court m Rajesh Kiamar Dewazigaa Vs«The Life lasiirax&ce Coffporatioaa of Ixadia & otfaers5 held that "the petitioner does not acquire aa mdefeasible right to be appoiated on the post of Assistaat pursuaat to his selection" aad that "no direction caa be given to issue app^intraeut letter to the petitioner though he has conie out successful iu the selection process/' Honlb^e Supreme Coiut in Official Liquidafeor Vs. Dayanand and others6 has niade it clear that the provisions ofArticle 14 of the Constitution would not be appMcable to the cases of regularization of ad hoc, teuiporaiy^ daily-wagers, casual employees and employees appointed on contract basis, as their appoiatoaaent itsetf is iUegal. In view of the above, this petition has BO mierit, it is accorduigly disudssed. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 4 2006 (4) SCC 1 5 {2007 (3) M.P.H.T. 22(CG)} 6 {(2008) 10SCC 1)