i ^ \ ^ ^ IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRITPETITIONfS^NO.^fi^ /2010. PETITIONER: Ramcharan Yadav, son of Gopal Yadav, aged about 49 years, working as Forest Guard, residence of village and Post Singhpur, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents /y' 0\^- . ^^ ^^•T?- ^^••^ ^^•y ...••"^"•^^ l.^State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Forest Departaient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^..-- 2. Van Sanrakshak, Raipur Circle, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Dhamtari Forest Division, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETfTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA l\ 's^^_&-t:: ^^ ^^ ^/ ^ssaS^L^- HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B1LASPUR WRIT PETITION (8) N0.2688PF2010 PETJTIONER Ramcharan Yadav a^' RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattjsgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constltution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnthotri, J. Present:- Shri C.J.K. Rao and Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocates fbr the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panei Lawyer for the State. ^8DE6J^^y (Passed on thisl4afdayiflMarc-h, 2011) 1. Heard learned counselfor the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 27/04/2010 (Annexure P/1) whereunder the petitioner was removed from semce on being found unsuitable and the petitioner further Impugns the order dated 31/05/2010 (Annexure P/2) by which the appeai preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by Conservator of Forest. 3. The facts, in nutsheil, as projected by tbe petitioner.are that the petitioner was appointed on daiiy wages basis in the Forest Department. Thereafter, by order dated 24/12/2007 (Annexure P/3) services of the petitioner was reguiarized. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the punishment smposed on the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, does not come within the definition of "nioral turpitude" and, as such, the services of the petitioner cannot be removed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. .^^^& 'a.. ;A ^. ^^' s?^;.11 ^^^- @ 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that even in the verification form, the proper information was not submitted by the petitioner. Looking to the case from all angies, even if it does not come within definition of "moral turpitude". The petitioner may be removed at any time from work for which he was engaged on daily wages basis. 5. Be that as it may, it is a trite iaw that an iilegal appointee cannot claim reguiarization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basls of appointment, as the same is not in accordance with law and was cfe hors the constitutionai scheme of employment. (See Secrefary, State of Kamataka and Others v^ Umadevi (3) anci Others1, Indian Dmgs & PharmaceuHcaJs W. */. Workmen, Indlan Dwgs & Pharmaceutscals Ltd.2, OfficiQlUqukiatorv. Dsyan&ndand others3 and State of Punjab and Offfers v. Surjit S'ngh and Others4). 6. Since ttie appointment of the petstioner was not on open invjtation of ali the eiigible candidates as required under the provisions of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and, as such, appointment of the petitioner was illegaS, being de hors the constitutional scheme of employnnent. Thus, he is not entitlect to any relief. Accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be heSd as iegal and in accordance with law. (See: Basanf Kumar Sahu v. The State ofMadhya Pradesh & Other/). 7. There is no merit cn the case and the case ss accordingly, dismissed. No order asto costs. 1 (2006)48cci 2 (2007) 1 SCC 408 3 (2008) 10 SCC 1 4(2009}9SCC514 5W.P.(S) No.3097 of 2005 (decided on 3fd March. 2009) Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge