IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT-BILASPUR(C.G.) WRIT PETITION(S)N0. 533i OF 2006 1. Chinta Ram Sinha, Aged about — 37 years S/o Sonjit Sinha, R/o Dhaurabhatha, Distt. - Raipur PETITION ER Sheikh Rahmat”: Aged — 35 years, S/o Sheikh Rasul, R/o Bayron Bazar, Raipur (C. G.) Ram Kishan Vaishnav, f Aged — 42 years, S/o Late Keshav Das Vaishnav, R/o Abhanpur, Distt. — Raipur (C. G.) Babu Lal Manikpuri, 1 Aged — 49 years, S/o Banshi Das Manikpuri, R/o Lakhe Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Raipur District — Raipur (C. G.) Nohar Singh Dewangan Aged — 40 years S/o Santu Ram Dewangan, R/o Village — Lumkasa, P. O. ~ Doma, District - Durg (C. G.) Shiv Kumar Thakur,v Aged — 36 years, S/o Dhiraji Ram Thakur, R/o Adarsh Colony, Kushalpur, Raipur District — Raipur (C. G.) Ganesh Devdas, , Aged — 4O years, S/o Shiv Ram Devdas, R/o New Purena, Raipur District - Raipur (C. G.) Ratnakar Sahur Aged — 42 years, S/o Daitari Sahu, R/o Village — Bargaon, P. O. a Ganekera, Tahsil — Basna, Distt. — Mahasamund. ’ ’ y . ' :‘ ‘ 9. Loknath Badhai,’ Aged — 40 years, S/o Kumar Badhai, R/o Viilage - Boeirdeeh, P. O. — Jagdishpur, Tahsil — Basna, District — Mahasamund (C. G.) 10. Gendu Ram YadaV Aged — 36 years, S/o Late Firu Ram Yadav, R/o Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Pacharipara, Raipur, District — Raipur (C. G.) 11. Chintamani Sahu Aged — 37 years, S/o Tiju Ram Sahu, R/o Lakhe Nagar, Raipur District — Raipur (C. G.) All the petitioners are working asv’ Chainman, at O/o The Coilector, Land Records, Raipur, C. G. VERSUS ESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through — The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Commissioner Land Records, Chhattisgarh, H. Q. — Raipur (C. G.) 3. The Collector, Land Records, Raipur District — Raipur (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE - 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / w R mww‘ ‘ V9I$U§ Shta ofChhawrh-mdothers ‘ P¥e$ant : Mr. R.KKeshar-wani, counsel-for thepManers. \ respondenhlsmte. _ (Passed on 6g: of November; 2006) Leamw cwnsel appearingionhmpm'tionewsubmmtmat;‘ the petitioners were‘appainted asdaity ratad empioym qnzoomingenwv fund 10 yearsback. It is admmad' a: 0!- the pewumrsmatmew appointment of the'rpawonels was notsinu' acaotdam» wihm oonstitutional ’schemer of} empleymant. or under any» rules «invitingxy applicatiuns from alHhe: aligibla mndidatsm ., 2. V. The Suprem: Coumr whila deding» vmh- “mam at» p daily‘vwagets, ad hoe employm. probationers; temporary ommtramat; employees. not appointed rfollewingv the ~pmcedure: laid v dewna under Articles 14, 16 and 309 ofk the .ConsMan. of India; heldwahatesueha: / @ appointmenis dehmvme-conwonal schameuamomm back door entry inthe mamr otpub‘ic ampioymerrt. > 3. The Constitutional Bemh .of aw Suprema» Court: in secretary, smomamataka andvamors‘vs. amado‘vi‘mmwom‘ has. laid. down char enunciatianrot hw‘ which was foltowad later: on in decisions by meaSupreme Gout: in Accaunts omcerfAw ARSRTOv and others vs. P; ChandmSekhgmRao anddhsrszand In Swindar Prasad Tlwan vs, UP. RrajyeiKlim Ufpadan‘ Maw Pmshw and, . others? 4. . For the- reasansl above-stmratd a: per; thalawldd dawn by the Supremel-Court. the peiihonots- are. not entitbd to absorptionlpermanentsmms oi regulmizationin thesewice‘.” This patition is accdrdingly $missed: No order-r as'to, v i / 3 J Sd/- a Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (mos) 4sce 1 7 SEC 483- 2 (2006) 7 $c 664v 3 (2006)