86 HIGH COURTOF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 22 of 2009 APPELLANTS PETITIONERS 3 Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Manau Ram Darendra S/o - Gadiram, aged about 24 years, R/o Gram Panchayat - Hetarkasa, Janpad Panchayat Bhanupratappur, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Kailash Kumar Korma S/o - Shayam Lal, aged about 29 years, R/o - Gram Panchayat Chargaon, Janpad Panchayat - Bhanupratappur, District - Uttar BastarKanker(C.G.) Sunaram Ghota S/o - Dukal, aged about 27 years, R/o - Gram Panchayat - Bheja, Janpad Panchayat - Bhanupratappur, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Departrtent of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Employment Guarantee Councit, Vikas Ayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) Union of India, - Through the Secretary, Ministry of Rurai development, New Delhi. District Programme Coordinator (Collector) under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 Kanker, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ^ 5 Janpad Panchayat, Bhanupratappur, Through the Chief Executive Officer, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 6 Zila Panchayat Uttar Bastar Kanker, Through the Chief Executive Officer, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) WRFT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) RULES. 2006 Present: Shri F.S. Khare, learned coynsel for the appellants. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. Shri R. Pradhan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. JUDGMENT (12th May, 2009) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No.01/2009, an applieation for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission . 2-, <> 5) The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 21.07.2008, passed in W.P.S. NQ. 1556/2008. 6) The appellants/ petitioners were seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for one more year. 7) The petitioners were appointed as 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' on contractual basis for a period of one year. In the year 2008, the respondents initiated recruitment process for the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak'. The petitioners participated in the said selection process. Inspite of grant of weightage of ten marks on account of their past experience on the saki post, none of the appeilants could be selected on a comparative merit of the candidates who participated in the selection process. The petitioners, thereafter, filed writ petition seeking their continuance on the said post. 8) The learned Single Judge considering that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for a limited period and in view of the dictum of the Apex Coyrt in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (3) and others, reported in (2006)'4SCC 1, held that the petitioners had no right to claim their continuance on the said post and therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 21.07.2008. 9) Shri F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in ^ismidsing the appellants' writ petition following the dictum ofthe r3 t c Apex Court in thecase of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (supra) as the said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10) Admittedly, the appellants/petitioners were appointed on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for a limited period of one year on contract basis. The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (supra) has categoricaliy held in para 47 that a person appointed on contractual basis for a limited period cannot claim his continuance on the said post after expiry of the contract period as a matter of right. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim their continuance on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' as ofright. 11) We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the appellants' writ petition was dismissed. 12) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SUNIL KUMAft SINHA Judge subb