;. •••s^y^. ^- Pstitioner Wrii Petition s'SS No. 4S2S of 20G( Virendra Singh, aged about 38 years, S/o. Rampa! Singh, R/o. Orem Baag, Ward No.13, Baikunthpur, Tahsii- Baikuntnpur, District Korsa (CG). Reseondents Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Water Resources Dh/ision, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division Baikunthpur, District Korea (CG). 3. Sub Divisionai Officer, Water Resourees Dlvision Baikunthpur, District Korea (CG). under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnshotri, J. t: Shri H.V. Sharma, counse! for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Panet Lawyer for the State. (Passed on th's 25th day of August, 2008} By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction tq the respondents to reguiarize the sen/ices of the petitioner. According to iearned counsei appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was working as daiiy wage worker in Water Resources Division, Baikunthpur, District Korea from November, 1990 to 19-5-1^7 (Annexure P/2). Now, the petitioner seeks a retief to re- appoint him as daily wager and thereafter regutarize him in service. 2) On perusa! of the papers, it appears that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with constitutionai scheme of empioyment as there was no advertisement inviting appiications from aii the eligible candidates or through employment exchange. initiai appointment of the petitioner eannot be heid as regutar or iega! appomtment as the same was de hors the constitutionai scheme of employment. 3$ it is weii settied principles of law that dally wagers have no right to the post. Thus, reinstatsmenti'continuation ofthe service cannot be granted;' 4) The Hon'bSe Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has categoricaily hetd that appointment on daiiy wages, contract and temporary, if not in accordance with law and de hors the constitutional scheme of empioyment, is not a proper or lega! appointment. The petitioner has not acquired any right to •li ^ :'<-.^ ^w- the post as his appointment was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of apDointment. 5) !n the matter of Indian Drugs Indian Drugs & PharmaceuticaSs under: Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, d. , the Suprems Court observed as "34. Thus. it is well settled that there is no right vested in any dai!y-v/ager to sesk reguiarisation. Reguiarisation can oniy be done in accordance with the ru!es and not de hors the ruies. in E.Ramakrishnan v. State of Ker/a ihis Court heid that there can be no reguiarisation de hors the rules. The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.) v. State of Maharaahtra, Union of india v. Bishamber Dutt. The direction issued by the Services Tribunal for regularizlng theservice of persons who had not been appoimeci on reguiar oasis m accoraance ruies v/as set aside aithough the petitioner had been working reguSariy for a long time. 35. !n Surinder Singh Jamwa! (Dr.) v. State of J&K it was he'd that ad hoc appointment does not give any right for regularisation as reguiarisatjon is governed by the statutory rules." 6) Further, in the matter of Stste of If.P. Court obsen/ed as under: and others Vs. Desh Raf, the "7. Whatever may be the import and purport of such regularisation rules, in view of the recent Constitution tench decision of this Court in Secy., State of Kamataka Vs. Umsdew, itis nowwe!) settled that the appointments, if made in vioiation of the constitutfonal scheme of equality as enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india, v/ould be rendered iiegai and, thus, vpid ab initio. No regularisation ruiss, therefore, could have been made bythe State ofUttar Pradesh in derogation of the statutory or a constitutional scheme" 7) Applying the well settied principies of law as stated above to the facts of the case, the petitioner cannot claim any reguiarization or reinstatement in service on the basis of his appointnnent, which 'ivas on daiiy wages basis and not in accordance with iaw and de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. 8) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. I. (2007) 1 SCC 408 2. (2007) 1 3CC 257 Sd;- ^y iiii