IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHANISGARH : BILASPUR ’‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shn' Saush K. Agnmom‘ J.) Shxi Kresh Tiwan', Advocate for the petitioners. nma Shri Yashwant Singh ’I‘hakur, Deputy Advocaie Genera with Shri Rakesh ha, Deputy Advocate General for the xespondents/ State. (Passed on this 16th Day of February, 2009) d arng f the tter is heald Iinally. ma 2. The petitioners, by this pention, claim reinstatement by giving them regular appointment and regulanzation on regular scale of pay and other service benents. 3. Acconfling to learned counsel appean‘ng for the petitioners, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher on Daily Wages (adhoc) in the year 1982 — 1983, purely on temporary basis. ’I‘heteafter, their service came to an end in the month of 1. With the cgsentlof Ieaxned counsel appei or the panics, \ Writ Peiition (S) No. 985 of 2009 l J O R D E R Petitioners 1. Ram Namyan Sahu, S/o Gopal Ram Sahu, aged about 53 years, r/o Shivnagar, new Changorabhatta, in front of Pawar Sanghatan Gali, Raipur (C.G.) ‘2. Ghasiram I-Iiiwani, aged about 48 yeals, S/o Makund Ram Hilwani, R/o Village — Chhapom, Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) ‘ 3. Thanu Ram Sahu, aged about 47 yeals, S/o saii‘k Ram Sahu, Rio Village — Robina, Tehsil 8n Thana Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhath‘sgarh, 'l‘hrough Secmtary, Educau'on Department (Ministry), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Deputy Director of Pubiic Instruction, Education Deparhnent, Post O$ce —- Pension Bada, Ann’nd Nagar, Ward Raipur (C.G.) @ March, 1984. Learned counsel submits that similarly situated pexsons had iiled W.P;(S) No. 1031/2008, wherein by order dated 18th February, 2008 they were granted liberty to make a repxtsentation and some other similarly situated persons had med W.P.(S) No. 29 13/2005, wherein they were also glanted liberty to make a lepresentation befom the concerned authoriu‘es. ’l‘hus, the plesent petiu‘oners may also be granted liberty to me a representation to the concerned authority and the concerned authority may be dixected to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, on its own merits. Be that as it may, the petitioners have tiled this petition after a period of 24 years from the date, cause of action arose. There is no explanation or justification for such inordinate delay and belated approach of the petitioners The nature of appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with rules and as such the petitioners do not acquire any right to the post. It is well settled principle of law by a catena of decisions that the employee appointed de‘hors the constitutional scheme of employment/and‘nof in accordance with law, has no right to continuation, reinstatement or regularization in service. This is also not the case of the petitioners that they were legally appointed, in accordance with law. It is clearly established that the appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance E77 @ ~3/ 5. The Supmme Court, in the matter of Secretary, mate of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others1 obsexved in pm 47 as under: “47. When a person entcxs a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contmctual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedum, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporaly, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectau‘on for being connrmed in the post when an appointment ,to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has-held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them Where they are or 'to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. 1t is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.” 6. In the matter of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Worl elk/Indigir mm & ‘Pharmnceutieals Ltd}, the Supreme Court observed as under: ‘,‘34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily—wager to seek regularization. Regularization can only be done in accordance with the rules and not dehorse the rules. .." 35. 1n smudér smgh Jamwai (on) v. Stats of Jam it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any tight for ‘ 2006 (4) SCC 1 2 2007 (1) scc 408 f’V / mgularjzau'on as regularization is govcmed by the statutory rules.” The obsexvau‘ons made by the Supmme Court in the matter of omcial Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and othena upheld the above mfexred decision in Secretaxy, State of Kalnataka and othexs (supm; Applying the well settled principles of law, as stated above, to the facts of the present case, whexein the petitioners were appointed on daily wages, pumly on temporaxy basis and their sewices come to an end 24 years ago, they have no right to the post. In view of the foregoing, the petition 1's dismissed. W ,r F‘ Thaku: I; 311/- Satish K. Agnihgttit Judge t { J ‘