,.l;ltsl"»w.,. S 'mit, •;^:i" ¥^ ; WMT PETn'ION No. 3043 of2004 iiltli'IIB Ganeshram Jabirey S/o Late Shri Dujeram Jahirey, A.ged about 54 years, R.'o Chandmi Chowk, Sataanii Mohalla, Near Gurughasidas Jai Stambh House No. 1382, Tahasil & District Biiaspur, ClAa.ttisgarh. VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisaarh Throu^i fhe Secretary, D.K.S.Bhawaii, Raipur, C.G. 2. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Secretary, l^isji'itra.liiya^, Sliopa.1 (M.P.) 3. The Conunissioner, Tribai Wetfare. Department, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Talisil Kat^iora, District Korba (Bilaspur) L'rNDER ARTICLE 226/227-0F THE CONSIITUTIONOFJNDIA SB: Hon'Ue Sfari Satfeh K. Asruhotri, J. Present: Shri Ms. Suiiita Jairi, Paael Law-yer for the State/respoadents 1, 3 & 4 'assed on 11"' day of A' /?nn' <4UU. !) Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits that tfae petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher at Primary School. Bfaandarkhoi, Katghora by District Co-ordinator, Scheduled Tri.be Department, on 13.01.1972 (Amiexiu-e P/l). Thereafier, ttie petitioner worked upto the vear 1976. One dav, without anv order, the services ofthe petitioner was discontinued. The petitioner, thereafter made an applicatioa for reappointing him on the said post which was rejected on 19.03.2002 (Annexiire P/3) on the ground that the petitioaer has beea out of service for about 26 years. Ilierefore, it was not possible to reappoint the I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, perosed the pleadinss and doeuments appended theret.o. It is evident tfaat. the petitioner was appoinied on 13.01.1&72 purely on temporary basis, statmg therein fhat the services of the petitioner caa be terminated at any point of tims. Admittedly, the appointment offhe petitioner was not in accordance with fbe constitutional scheme, i.e. throu^i proper seiectioa after invitmg applications fi-om ail eiigible candidates. 6. The Hoa ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has catesoricaUy if aot m scheme of on daily wa.ges, contract dehors the employment, is acquired any n': ing tbat a lie the post as tus appointaneat was 1 scheme ofappomtment not produced any document or « loval order was passed. However, aeceptms the fhat the petitioner was removed orally in the be any improvement in the statiis of the gr year ly'.'b, petitioner. Be that as it may, once the appomtment of an employee is found illegal or re-appointe offhe petitioner was not in as enshTined under A-rticls 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Thus- appointrasnt of the petitioner itself is iilegal. Subsequent action of removal from service cannot be questioned. Th.e service of fhe daily wager em.ployee can be temiinated at anv point oftime. (See Secretarv, State ofKarnataka and ot'tte'fs v. UmaDevi (3) andothers ). Applying fhe well settled principies oflaw as stated above to the facts of the case, fhe petitioner cannot claim reiiBtatement in service on the basis ofhis appomtment, which was temporary and not in accordaace with law Aecmdmslv, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/'- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge • (20U6) 4 SCC 1