HlCjH.COl.TR'I' OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PET1TION (S) No. 2071 of2009 pE'rmoNER RESPONDENTS Smt» Rukb.mani Kashyap W/o Devnarayan. Kasliyap, aged aboyt 36 years, R//o village Negurdih, Post Kirit Tahsil Nawagarfa, District Jarijgir Cliampa C.G. VERSUS 1. State of C.G. 'llirough the Secretary, Depailmerit of Pasichayat and Rurai Deveiopm.ent DK.8 Bha-wan Raipur (CXT,) 2. J<isipad Paiidiayat, Jaiygir Cliampa, tlirough : Chief executive Ofiicer,, District Jaojgir Chaiiipa (C.G.) 3, Smt Dwaravati W/o Rameshwar, aged about 20 years, R/o village Neg'ardili, Post Kirit, Tahsil Nawagarh., District Janjgir-Champa C.G. WRITPETmgNUNDERARTICLE 226 OF THECON8TmJT10NOF,!ND$A SB: Hoii*Me S3m Satisfe K. Asmhotn. J. Preseiit: Sliri Rafcesli Paiidey, Advocate for the petitioiier. Shri Y.S/rhakw, Deputy Advocate Geoeral fbrthe State/respondent No. 1. ORALORDER (Passed on 2'2M day of April, 2009) 1. 2. Leamed coynsel appeari.ng fbr the petitioner submits that the petitionier was appointed as Crram Rojgar Sahayak on cotitract basis for a period ofone yea.rvj.de order dated 13.6.2007 (Annex^re P/21 lliereaftCT^. so.me other persons. have beeii appointed by the State Govemment for a furtlier period ofone year on contract basis vide order dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure P/l). It is next contended by Shri Pandey that the petitioner has right to continuation or consideratioD. m the subsequent appomtment as the petitioiier has obtained one year experiesice as Gram. Rojgar Sahayak, on confra-ct basis. The dispute involved m 'fhis case is no longer res integra. The cojitract appomtee fbr a fixed term of appointmeDt has no rigfat to cositinue or reiiistatement after the contract period has come to mi end. The appointm.eM of the petitioner, even if it is in accordance wi-th law, cannot be exteBded on the groiind fhat he has right' to be considered and contin.iie fbr the second term also, Amit I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On bare pemsal of the records, it is dear that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a fixed period of one year. The claim ofthe petitioner that her services be extended or she ought to have been considered for subsequent year is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions; has categorically held that appointment on daily wages, contract and temporaiy, if not in accordance with law and dehors the constitLitional scheme of employment, is not a proper or legal appointaient. The petitioner has not acquired any right to the post as her appointment was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. In view of the above, the petitioner has not acquired any right to the post and ifshe has not acquired aiiy right to fhe post, not considering or extending the term of appointment cannot be held as illegal aiid vitiated. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and others \\ Uma De\n (3) and others^ IndianDnigs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Vs. Workmen,. Indian Dmgs & Pharmaceiiticals Ltd1 and Offlcial Liqziidatar Vs. Dayanand and other^). In view of the foregoing, the petition has no substanoe and is accordingly dismissed. ———~ —— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 2007(1)8cc 408 3 (2008) 10 SCC1