%.u^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR W.P No. 826/2005 Petitioner Respondent Vs. Sonau Ram The State ofMadhya Pradesh & others. Post for order on ^J/04/2008 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judg€ r '^0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS WritpetitionNo. 826 of 2005 Sonau Ram, aged about 27 years, son of Shri Ramu Sonkar, by occupation-service, r/o Guriyaripara, Arang, District Raipur. VERSUS l.The State of Madhya Pradesh through the Secretary, Ministry ofHealth Services, Bhopal. 2. The Director, Health Services, Bhopal. 3. The Joint Director, Health Services, Raipur. 4. The ChiefMedical and Health Officer, Raipur. 5. The District Malaria Officer, Raipur. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J.) Present : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on^ofAprlI, 2008) 1. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 28.11.1991 (Document No. 6) whereby, the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 23.08.1991 (Document No. 3), on the post of Ward Boy, at the Collector's rate, was cancelled. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Field Worker on daily wages basis temporarily in the office of District Malaria Officer, Raipur, for the period from 16.06.1986 to 27.08.1986 (DocumentNo. 1). The petitioner was again appointed as Field Worker on daily wages basis temporarily for a period from 01.05.1989 to 22.08.1989. The petitioner was, thereafter, selected for appointment on the post of Ward Boy on the recommendation ofthe departmental selection committee, at the Collectorfs rate on 23.08.1991 (Document No. 3) and was posted at Primay Health Centre, Kumd (Kutela). It was stated in the order that the appointment was ^ purely temporary and could be terminated at any time. The petitioner joined the post ofWard Boy on 27.08.1991 (Document No.4). Subsequently, on 28.11.1991, the appointment ofthe petitioner on the post of Ward Boy, at Collector's rate, was cancelled in compliance ofthe memo dated 22.11.1991 issued by the Director, Health Services, Government ofMadhya Pradesh. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 28.11.1991 and further a direction to allow the petitioner to perform his duties with regular salary. Shri Parag Kotecha, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on regular post afiter proper selection. Thus, cancellation ofthe appointment order without assigning any reasons was bad in law and deser^es to be quashed. Per contra, Ms. Sunita Jain, leamed counsel appearing for the State would submit that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Ward Boy was not by promotion. The impugned order was passed cancelling the earlier appointment order as there was ban during the said period when the appointment was made by the respondent No. 4. Since the appointment was made during the ban period, the appointment was accordingly cancelled. Even otherwise, the appointment was purely on temporary basis and that does not give any right to the petitioner to the post, even ifhe has worked on the post for some time as appointment itselfwas void ab-initio. Shri Kotecha next contended that similarly situated one employee Shri Mahesh Kumar Pandey was re-appointed after his appointment was cancelled by the same order dated 28.11.1991. The petitioner has produced a document dated 30.04.1992 (Annexure 9), whereby, Shri Mahesh Kumar Pandey was re-appointed. l!!,i: 42. tL 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties^ perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of order dated 23.08.1991 (Document No. 3), it is evident that the appointment ofthe petitioner on the post of Ward Boy was purely temporary. It is well settled principle of law that temporary employee has no right to the post. Thus, reinstatement/continuation of the ser^ice cannot be granted. The question asto whether appointment was void ab-initio cannot be decided for want of relevant documents i.e. memo dated 12.11.1991, issued by the Director, Health Services., as the same, despite sufficient opportunity granted to the parties, could not be produced. 8. In the case of Secretary, State ofKamataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others', a Constitution Bench ofthe Supreme Court observed as under: "45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual be regularized or made pennanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concemed has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length oftime. It is not as ifthe person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the , nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain-not at arm's length-since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone^ it would not be appropriate tojettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode ofpublic appointment which is not permissible. "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or get engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such person cannot invoke 2006(4)SCC1. ^3 '^.. '^--"^ the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concemed, in consultation with the Public Service Commission." 9. The petitioner is at liberty to make representation before the authority concemed in the light ofthe fact that one similarly situated employee Shri Mahesh Kumar Pandey was re-appointed after his appointment was cancelled, if so advised. 10. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in the case. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu