^p /zre^— PETITIONER ^ye^ ..'tSii^ ,sv';'Y\ \v^*'r ^^y^'' ^'^~ ..»•*'*' ^^..••^"'" AS0"" RESPONDENTS <2>1 IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM AT BILASPUR (C.G.l WRIT PETITION fSyNO. 1QW ^•' ^ cf r^'fi?Iohammed Habib Khan Son of Rasool Khan, aged about 45 yearS, Timekeepgr, Daily Wages, ,HasdeQ Barrage Division, Department of Water Resources, Korba (C.G.). VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarh,Through: The Secretary, Department of Water Resources, D.K.S. BMwan, Raipur (C.G.^. .:•. •^..•^ . ' /<2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources/Raipur (C.G.). •^37 The Chief Engineer, Minj Mata (Masdeo Project), Bilaspur (C.G.). WRriLPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TME CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA. 1950, FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN TI-1E IMATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, ETC. AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIM'E WRIT OR WRITS. ORDER OR ORDERS. DmECTION OR DIRECTIONS. HMW COUICT^JXiTOGATinWKimATTiaoMm.m^ SIa^e Beacli: Hoa'Ue Shrtfiatiah K.AanUiotei, J. W^S.WMo- CS7 of;a007 PfetitfoDer : Mohaaun^ HabibKhan Versus Respondente : StateofChIiattisgarti&ofliers !% 3. ,.€< :3~;.-% Shri Alok BalEahi, Adyoeate for the pctiticaier. Shri Satiati Gupta, Oeputy Qiavt. Advocate for the lespoDdents. ; ORDBR (nB»<8A«mtkteSU»AiytB'd)nuu?y,a007^ 1. Tfafrpe^ticmeTtosfil?d fhispetitioB^^&^ da^ 16.6,2006 (Aatwiexuie^P/6)^^ w^ has coasideicd aiid decidedi^te repCesentation^ <^ petitaoa aiid thBee otheTS, in accoidanGe wifh taw, in compKance of fhe ordcr dated 4.4.2006 (Amiexure P/4) passed by this Court in W. P. Np. 370/2002. 2. Lcaraed .couusel appearing for tfae pctitioner submlts ttiat ffae respondent No.3 has lejccted fhe case ofthe petiljpaer on fi»eba^s of a sutosequent cacular offhe year 1999, whicdi was aeittier quotednor placed in fbe preyibus writpetitionon i.c. W. P. No. 370/2(W2. 3. Bethatasitmay, fhepetitjbi^w^eD^agedas'iraime^^^fe *""•'' .' .'• . '.'..'.'•. . ••'.. '••''• .' wagea basis ani the seraiees pftihe petttioner•were never vegsSalSz^i. 4. The petitionerwas adioittedty appointed on deSy wages I>asi»asTiine Keeper. Thc ^ppomtmcnt of fhe ^petitmner was dfi-hora tte ccmstitutioiialsclleme^tlie apptMntnient ari n€>tin.aocoidtmE«"mtt& tew. 'nui^ ttie petitkxner Iias DO right to t^ now that a person appomted- on daify wagss basis, tempoiGBiy QE .t^ t?;' ad hoc, de-hois fhe constitutionalscheme oftis£emftoysaeataiudDot in acGonlance wifh Rules, Regiilations, has 110 right to (hc post Iffhe petitioner has 110 right to fhc post, fae has no nght to regulBirization on the basu of appoiatment as daify wages basis wtuph is i.uncQnstitutfoiial appomtnuait 5. For tbe reasons abave-stated and as per the dicta laid duwn toy the Supreme Court in cateaa of decisioits, fhe petitipDer is not aitifled for reappoiatmeat/remstatement aad regularizatton in ffie serviee. 9. This petition is aecoriija^fy disuussed. No onler as tocosts. .\ Tfaakur w - ^ ;Sd/-. Sataslt^K.Sa' Judge; <-••