EIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAI'EH. @ILA5PUR BiViSiON 3§NCH: HGN'ELE iv‘xR aHIRENDRA :‘viISH§A 3: HGN‘ELE £i1R. RN. 'CHANDFIAK‘AR. JJ W.§. No.218/03 {Wri‘f fimaai u/s 2 of +he C5. High Cour’r (Anpeai’ f0 Division §ench) #icf, 2068 IQPP§ILANT3 ‘1“ Dwarika Pmsad Vaciava, aged aboui 43 Appiicani’s year's, 5/0 Shri 5P. ‘fadcva, Ex» Lab A'Hendan’f, 5c§er=ca CaHege, Raipur, resideni’ of Gudhiyari, Paipur‘, Tahsil and Disi‘ric? Raipur (Ci?) Samuei Lat aged abcuf 39 yecxra 5/0 Shri Tmmanuai Lai, Bo Lab Affendan’i‘. Gevemmeni’ Science Coiiege, Raipur, »rasidan+ cf Rohinipuram, Raipur‘ Tahsi‘. and Disiric‘f Raipur‘ {CG} U) Chandu Lai Sahu, ageq i aoou‘i I 42 years, 5J0 Shri Udaycxmm Sahu, Ex=Lrzb Aifendan’f, Science Coileqe. Raipur. residenf of Khusaipur, §aipur, Tahsii and “but wiaxrl£f : “-3“... muiyui f/‘C.\ \v ) 4. Hoieshwar Rao imiev, (med aboui 41 years, S/a $‘nr‘i fifmdhvmo Engiey, Ex" \Ai-+;—L wwwmarx, 5ciemce eanege, I" H Qaipur, Tahsii and‘ Disi’ricf Rainur {CE} Ni R§3?Oi€B§NTS 1. Shri iQaman Kumar Shrivasi'ava, For-meriy .. .. Principai, Gavernmeni' Science ionege, Non-Appncani‘s‘ .L hhhhhh 4. D 'mp‘ -l RGipUi‘ a; Pr¢a5xn ii‘hwipui, DgWiJG‘y' Coiiege, Rajnandgaon (CG) Frincipai, {’mvernmeni’ Science Coiiege, Qaipur (CG) 3. Governmenf of Madhya Waciesh {New 5&3.) Through- $ecre1‘ary, iiigher E&mca?icn Raipur {C5} 4. Sunii Kumar‘ Shrivasfava, agea‘ aboui 42 years, 3/0 3N. 5hrivasi'ava, Lab Affendanf, 5cvern. xen‘i Science Cs!!e§e, Raipur. residem” oi: jam‘a Coiony, {Euci’niyar-i, Raipur Tans” and 'Disi‘r‘icf Raipur {CE} )l\ Frewn‘i’: -il. “J..- UNS. Deo. Gov’r. Advocafe for The STafe‘ . QA.,_ n rah XI T H‘m‘ii‘l, riuVGCax€ AJ a. .C iGi" .\.l. m6 Qj’pmlania’ §mi Grder {3G, 11 . 2009) ‘Dhirendr‘a :Wshm. (T:— i. This wrh‘ uppeai is direcfed' againsw‘ fhe order cim‘ed 8.8.2009 passed in WP. (S) No.1614/2005 whereby 'i'he ieamed Single judge has dismissed ihe wri‘i‘ pe'ri'rion ‘Fiied By ihe pefifionerS/‘Qppeiianfs herein. 2. The pefii’ioners/appeiiams herein filed' Original Appiica‘iion No.313G/94 in ihe MP. 3mm Adminisfm‘iive Tribunai. inhaipur far auashing of The order dafed 28.6.1993 whereby services of fhe peiii’ionersfappeiidnfs herein, who were abpoim‘ed’ on ad-hoc basis, were ferminaieci wef ., 30.61993. The maf'i’er was received an fransfer in The Hiah Cour’i 3. The appeiianfs were appoim‘eci 0n ad-hoc basis fer s period of 30 days vide 0rder dafeci 30.12.1991. They were again appoinfed for a periotf 5‘? 28 days afier a break of one ciay wef. 1.2.1992. The appeiian'i's were ‘ aiiowed’ To confinue in service i‘iii 30.6.1993 by giving ihem apnoinimeni’ wii'h a break of one or iwo days in fheir service. Thereafier, 'i'heir services were "rermina’red vide impugned order daied 28.6.1993. 4. Mr. iiwari: iearned counsei for The anneiiam‘s argued *i‘hm‘ afier nassino of ihe arder of Annexure iii-1‘, The appeiianis and oTher empioyees submi'i'iec‘i represenra’iion dared 20.7.1993 {Annexure #223 ’ra 'ihe Somi‘nissioner, Higher Educa‘i’ian for reembiovmenf. They submiried' i‘urr‘ner represenia‘iions on 12?.1993 8i 13.8.1993, however. respondeni No.4 was aypoim‘ed on ad~hoc basis on 08.12.1993 vide Annexure A‘Z’i and ene Shiv Saran Vadav was appoin’red on reguiar basis vide order dared 9.5.1995 {Annexure #28). iou‘i ihe represenrafions of ’i’he appeiian‘is were never considered. Therefore: The said ac? of responden’rs No.2 6i 3 is arbh‘rary and ‘rhe same amoum’s To discriminafion. however: This‘aspec? has no? been considered in ihe impugned order. 1111. Wrii pe'ih‘ion filed hy ihe appellanls herein has heen dismissed wi‘ih an ohserva’rion ‘iha‘r appoini'men‘i o“? ihe appellant's herein was no‘i in accordance wi'l'h Rules and as such They do no? acquire any riahi’ ’ro lhe oasi. Qeierrino ’i'o “ihe iademem‘ of ”(he Hon'ble Shereme Couri’ in The . L8 m‘diw‘e’r‘ a? $2é‘f’ewry, Sfafe' bf Karmmka and whers Vs. Umadevi (3) and awers reporfed in {2006) 4 $CC 1, h‘ has been observeci fha‘f fhe appeilm‘rs hetem ‘nave failed “m esfabiish fha‘r fhey were iegaiiy {momm‘eii "In fhese circumsTances, There is no righ‘? avaiiabie To *rhe mneiimm harem ”far confmuafion/raempioymen’f m" reguiarizm‘inn in Mr. Tiwar‘i‘ ieamed aounsei “5:0r‘ ‘f‘ne appeHarWs gms no? shown anyfhirig a; from ‘rhe record Thu”? fha appeiiam's were iegaiiy appoin’rati 1‘0 ‘fhe mid pos’r. The {mg‘y argumw? ’i‘hm” responder}? No.4 was ’rheraa‘ffer‘ appoimw an ad-hoc é’msis vide order 0f Ahnexure P~21 and fhe same amoun‘rs To di§crimimfion and ‘rherefor‘e, 'fhe imbugned arcier cf ‘fermimi’iori of £rmexura Ad desarvas TO be quaShgadg came? be accep‘rad m The. abserica a? iegcxg apnaimmem f0 'fhe 965i The appaiimfs have rm righ’r Ta fhe mas? as Raid: bv ma ieamad Singie juii'gra m 'fha impugne& oraer" I . in 141% resuH, wa find no subs’rance in "rhis wri? appeai, fhe same deserves To ba c§ismissed and accordingiyl if is dismissed. f I I Sd/— : Dhirendra Mishra Judge