/(•5^^-J IN THE HtGH COUOT OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUK Writ Petition No. 475 of 2001 Petitioner Santosh Kumar Lahre, aged about 28 years, S/o Kashi Ram. Lahre, R/o Vfflage - Jogipur, P.0. Baudha, Tehsil - Takhatpur, Distfc Bflaspur. Versus Respondents 1. The State of Ctaliaftisgarh, Through: The Secretaiy, Departnient of Panchayat and Gramia Vikas, Mantralaya, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer, Jaupad Paachyat Taldiatpur, District - Bilaspur (C'garh). Sarpan.ch, Gram Paachyat Doinaapur Vikas Khaad - Takhatpur, District ~ Bilaspur (C'garh). 2. 3. WRrLPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble SbriSatish K. AgnihotriJ.) Shri P. M. Shrivas, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yashwaut Siugh. Thaicur, Deputy Advocate Gciieral witb Ms Siinita Jaia, Paael Lawyer for ttie rcspondent/ State. ORDER (Passed on this 10th Day ofSeptember, 2008) 1. With fhe consent of Icanaed counsel appearing fcr the parties, the niatter is heard finaUy. 2. By order dated 16.9.1998 (Aanexute P/5), the petitioner was appoiuted as Guruji (Sbiksiia Karm-U on honouiarium of Rs. 500/- p.ia. ia Gram Panchayat Domanpur, Btock - Takhatpur, District - BUaspur, under the Sli-tksha Guarantee scheiue, iu accordance with the Rajeev Gaacthi Shikstaa Mission. Tbereatter, by oider dated 6.3.1999 (Aimexure P/10) the school was closed aud the scheiae was withdrawn tbr waut ofrequisite nuinber ofchildren avaUabte Ibr education. 8>, {')• ^-%< 6. By this petitioii the petidoner seeks a direction to the respondents to reopen the school at edueation center Sawaatpur aad to appoint the petitioaer as Guruji ia fhe school as and when it is reopened. Be that as it inay, since the eng^euient of the petitioner was for a IJTnited purpose, for imparting education to fhe students in a school, wtuch was opened under fbe Shiksba Guarantee Scheine, on payuient of honorarium, the petitioner has no right to continue iu semce. It is not in. dispute that the sctiool itselt' was closed. TIius, fh.e petitioner was not entitled to continuation ia bis engagement. The nature of appoiatiuent of the petitiouer was not ta accordau.cc with Rules aad as such the petitioner does not acquire any r%ht to fhe post. It is well settled pruiciple of law by a catena of decisions tbat the einployee appointed de-bors fhe constitutional schenie of einployment aad not iu accordance with law, has no right to continiiation, reiustateBient or reguladzation ia service. Ttus is also not fhe case of the petltioner that be was legaUy appoiated, in accordauce with law. It is clearly established that fhe appointment of tbe petitioncr was not iu. accordance with law. The Supreme Court, ia the matter of Secretary, State of Karaataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) aad others1 observed in para 47 as uader: "47, When a person enters a temporary employxuent or gets eng^ement as a contractual or casual worker aud fhe eng^eBient is not based on a proper selection as ' 2006 (4) SCC 1 7. 8. -^ 3 recognized by fb.e relevant rules or procedure, Jie is aware of ftie consequences of the appoiatment beiag teiaporaiy, casual or contractual iu nature. Such a person caaiuot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being coitfinaed ui the post wben aa appointtnent to the post could be made only by foUowiag a proper procedure for selection and in cases concemed, ia consultation with the Public Service Coiamission. Ttierefore, the theoiy of legitunate expectation cannot be successfuUy advanced by teiuporary, contractual or casual einployees. It caruiot also be Iield that ttte State Iias held out any proinise wtiile engaging these persons either to contuiue them where ftiey are or to make them permaaent. The State cannot constitutionatly inake such a promise. It is also obvious that tjhe theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive rellefof beiog luade pennaiient in the post. Applymg the weU settled principles of law, as stated above, to the facts of the prescnt case, whereia the petitioiier was appoiated OH fixed honouranum basis aad tris services come to an end with fhe closure of the school itselt, be has no right to fhe post. TIie petition is accordiugly dismissed. _-—- Sd/- SatishK.AgmboW Judge Tbdait ?