^0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLESHRI SUNILKUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 17 of 2009 APPELLANTS PETmONERS Versus RESPONDENTS 1 4 Ashok Kumar Vatti S/o Bhagwan Singh, aged about 22 years, R.o- Gram Panchayat - Byaskongera, Janpad Panchayat - Kanker, District-Uttar Bastar (^nker (C.G.) Mahesh Kumar Jurri S/o Budhuram, aged about 24 years, R/o Gram Panchayat - Murdongri, Janpand Panchayat-Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Steteof Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Employment Guarantee Council, Vikas Ayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) Union of Indja, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Rural development, New Delhi. Distrlct Programme Coordinator (Collector) under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 Kanker, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat, l^nker Through the Chief Executive Officer, District-Uttar Bastar tenker (C.G.) Zila Panchayat Kanker, Through the Chief Executive Qfficer, District-Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 73 WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGHCOURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) RULES. 2006 /:''w Present: Shri F.S. Khare, leamed counsel forjhe appellants. ShriPraveen Das, learned Deput Government Advocate for the State/ respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. Shri Ajay Baraik, learned counsel on behalf of Shri S.K. Beriwal, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. JUDGMENT (22nd April, 2009) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Leamed counsel for the parties are heard on I.A, No. 01/2009, anapplication for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel forthe parties are heard on admission. 5) The appeltants have filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 21.07.2008, passed in W.P.S. No.2115/2008. 6) The appellants/ petitioners were seeking a direction to the respondents to altow them to continue on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for one morg year. {.1\ 7) The petitioners were appointed as 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' on contractual basis for a period of one year. In the year 2008, the respondents initiated recruitment process for the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak'. The petitioners participated in the said selection process. Inspite of grant of weightage of ten marks on account of their past experience on the said post, none of the appellants could be selected on a comparattve merit of the candidates who participated in the selection process. The petitioners, thereafter, file writ petition seeking their continuance on the said post. 8) The leamed Single Judge considering that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for a limited period and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (3) and ottiers, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, held that the petitioners had no rightto claim their continuance on the said post and therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 21.07.2008. 9) Shri F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the leamed Single Judge has erred in dismissing the appellants' writ petition following the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & (rthers v. Umadevi (supra) as the said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10) Admittedly, the appellants/petitioners were appointed on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' fora limited period of one year on 'contract basis. The Apex Court in the case of State of 4 s^ v< subbu Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (supra) has categorically held in para 47 that a person appointedon contractuat basis for a limited period cannot claim his continuance on the said post after sxpiry of the contract period as a matter of nght. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim thelr continuance on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' as of right. 11) We, therefore, do not findany infirmity in the impugned order whereby the appeltants' writ petition was dismissed. 12) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge •