HIGH €GURT 6F €HHA‘FT?SG&§H 1 EIL§5R§R W“ ‘u’v’RIT ?ET?TI§N MG. Ti $§ §F 25%? ‘PE?iTiG£‘€EE$ ”x. Ku. Bhagwarw Sahu, D/a Shri Sadh Ram Sahu, aged about 24 years, resident of vmage Gtgan, Bunch: aélaigam, Distfécé Raiaur. 2. F3urshatiam. Sfe ShfE Manahm Lai, agéd about 27 year$, Chhirchuan Samsiyapam, R/a village Pachiaedi, P05? Raikona, Tah$ii Biiaigarh, District Raipur. Paras Ram, Sfo Shf§ Rafi P'r'aSaa Khuife aged aboui 27 years, villege Saihewana: B£GCK Bilaigarh, DiStiict Raipur. é}? Q) Versus Fi§3P$MSENT$ 1. The Siate ef Chhaiiiegarh. fhrewh the Seeretary; Department of Panchayat, D.K. Bmlding. Ram”: The Shief Executive Gfficer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, Distrist Renew. 3. The Biock EducaiTan 0%cer, Bioek Bilaigarh, District Raipur. The Sarpaheh, Gram Panehaye‘i Jere, Bleek. Biiaigarh, District Reipur. The Sarpahch Gram Panchayat, Dandani, Biock Biiésgarhi District Raipur, 5. The Safpaneh, Gram Pahchayai Toiidah, Bieek Bilaigarh, Dieirict Reipur. $ingie 3eheh : i=§en’hie ehfi Saiish K. Agnihetri, J. .Qieeem‘k Ms. Savite Tiwai'i. ceunsel ferthe petiiionez's. Shh Y5. Thakur, Dy. Adv. Genei'ai with Shri MRS. Bhatia. Dy. Gevt. Advocate for the State. k3! 4‘» U‘I GRAL QRDER (Paesed 9n this 19m day of March, 200% With the cohsent ef iearheci ceuneei aphearihg fer the hartiee, the pei‘iiiom ie heare' Tihaiiy. 2) By The, peiiiieh, The petitienefe impugn The teimihatieh erdei' dated 2e-12—1%98 {Anhex'ure — PH} whereby the eewiees ef the hetitionere were remeved em the pest of Garag'is appoihted under the Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Missien ch temperary basis. {e h M 3) Tf're facis, in nutshe", fer diSpasa! of the case, are that i'he petitioners were appointed a$ Gmy‘k undef ‘che Rajiv Ganiihi Shiksha Missian an 23-54997. 26-54%? and 26-8-1997, respectiveiy cm tempwary basis on the recemmendatbn af Gram Famha an honerarium éf R$.500/- per mamh. The schoois run unfier ihe Education Guarantee S§heme (fm’ shsrf me EGS’§ were ciased and as sash, the appetittments 0t the petittehefe came tea an ea-a'. The grievanee of the petitioners is that if the schoots run uheef the EGS have come to an end. the eetitionefs eught te have been considefed for aepoihtmeht on the pest at Shiksha Katmés Graete w itt er they may be adjusted eieewhere. ii. 4) Learned eouhsei appeating fer the State submits that since the schoois rue uhder the EGS have come to an entt, the petittohers, who were temoorarity appointed oh honorarium basis, were removed from the service on account of ciosure of schoois. 5) t have heard iearneo counsel apoearing for the parties, peruseti pieadings and the documents appendeo’ thereto. 6) it is welt settieti principles ot law that if a scheme or project has come to an end. the emptoyees have no right to be reappointed or reinstated eisewhere in other Departments. 7) The Supreme Court in State of MP. and athers vs. Arjunlal §ajak1 observed as under : “6. it is heyond any doubt or dispute that a daily—wager ,does not hoid a post, The Forest Department is a wing of the State. its emptoyeee hoid a status. For acquiring that status and for obtaining the constitutional protection in terms of Articie 311 of the Sonstitution. ail appointments must be made in conformity with the constitutionai scheme as iaid down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as weil as the rules made in terms of the proviso to Articie 30$ of the Constitution or in terms of e. legislative Act. Concededly, while anpointed the respondent, the constitutional provision or the statutory provisions had not been followed. The rights and liabilities of the parties are. therefore, governed by the terms of the contract and/or the provisions of the statute appiicapie in relation thereto. The respondent was not given any offer of appointment in writing. He admittedly worked in difference departments of the State. His iast posting was in the production division of the m»..- iaCi’ii 7H Foresi Eeparimefii ‘in ihe éi$irict 6f Gum which as notigad above stood abolished, It is, hewever; irue that whiie iermmating the service5 of the respgndent the appeilants had. ngt compiied with ihe mandatory réquérements of SectiGn 25=F sf €he lndusiriai §i$iaute$ Aat and, thus, ordinarihi, the wgrkman could havg been diregted to be reinstated with or without bash: wages, bat it iS aiso weii settied that when a projeot or a Scheme or an office itseif is aSoiishem raise? by way of reinotatement i$ not granted” {Mao see iiiurziciiaai Gouhcii, $amraia vs. Raj Kumarz, Municipai Souncil, Samraia v5. $vi<hwiader Kaut‘a ahd Prihcinai, Niehar Chand Poiytechnio and anotheggiv's. Amt Lamha and other§4), g} i’ippi‘y’ing the weii $ettied ratio iaid down by the $upreme Court in the aioreoaid cases to the taots otthe preseht caso whétéin the petitioners were remeved on ciosute ef the schoete tun mder the EGS, the petitioners have no right te centihue ot to be reappointed as Shiksha Karmis. Evett etherwise, the appeietment at the petitienete was pureiy en temporary and hertorarium basis. t6) in View ei‘ the teregeing, the eetitiort is iiabie te ‘ee and ie accerttingiy eismieseci. Ne ereier aeto casts. ti) Seneequentiy, aii the peneing eppiicatione stand dieposee of. .€[ Sd/- Gowri Satish K. Agnihou'i Judge f (2005) 3 scc 81 (2006) e ecc 516 f (2006) r (2006) 7 sec 161