HfGi—l COUR’K‘ OF CHHAE‘HSGARH AT BILASPUR Wi‘it Petit‘km N0. 2633 {£2002 \‘ER : BilagVvarli Ram Sinha, son of Shri Thakur Ram $inha, Resident of V'iiiage Dondaki, P.O. Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. FETETIO VERSUS 1. State 0f Madhya Pradesh, through Secretary, Schooi Education Depamnen‘t, Mantralaya Vallabh Bilawan, Bixopal. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Schoo} Ec‘lucaiion Depamnent, DKS Bhawam Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhaitisgm‘h). 3. Director, ?ubiic Instructione, Pension Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 1H}; CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: iionihie IVE. Satish K, Agnihotri. J.) Present : Shri Vivek Rathore, ALivocate for the petitioner. Ms, Stiiaita a‘M'ii, Paizel Lawyer for the State. RESPONBENTS §§ALW0RDER tagged m 2"“ :my afMarch, 2am) W’ith the consent ofthe pmtiesy the matter is taken up for hearing fmaily. Leameé eounge‘i appean'ng for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Middie School; Ilimidi, Jagri’alpur, on daiiy-wages basis, Without suppiying a copy of his appointment order in support of his submission. He further submits that his service have been a‘iseontinued. without tiling any documents in support of his contention. Without supplying any reievant documents asto whether he was appointed with the respondent/State, the petitioner has tiied this petition seeking similar r order passed in the matter of Anna Rani Deshmu‘nh and Others Vs. State of Mi). and Others (\WR (S) No. 2574/2005). @o Be that as it may, since the petitioner has not submitted his appointment order or disengagement order, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for want of material facts. The daily wager who was appointed dehors the constitutionai scheme of employment, is not entitled to backwages, reinstatement, continuation or regularization. The services of a daily wager can come to end at any day whenever his services are not required. If appointment itself is not in accordance with constitutional scheme of employment, the daily wager cannot make a grievance against his telmination. The Supreme Court, in the matter ofSecretaiy, State of Kamataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and otharsl ebserved in para, 47 as under: “47. When a person enters: a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper seieetion as recognized by the reievant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences ofthe appointment being temporary: casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke 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 concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory oflegitimate 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 tate cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief ofbeing made permanent in the pos .” ‘e: hi the matter ot‘lndian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals 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 dehors the rules. .....” Supreme asto costs. Sahu Wai‘ 35111 Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dix) v. State 0fJ&K it was {161d that ad 1109 appointment does not give any right for mks.” regularizatiOn as reguiarization is governed by the statutow The observations made hereinabove in cases (Supra), with approvaL the Couit in the matter of Oiiicial Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others3 has further explained about the rights of the daily wagers and regularization. Para 7U reads as under: “70. The Shift in the Court’s approach became more three-Judge prominent in Bench, A. Umarani wherein v. it Coop, was held Societies. that the decided State cannot by a invoke Article 162 of the Constitution for regularization of the statutory appointments provisions. made ” in Vioiation of the mandatmy For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed. No order Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Jugge k . _. _ sew—m 3 (zone) 10 scc 1