FOHE THI STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TBIBUNAL AT JABALPUR O.‘h. No4 (17% /J.99; to Wk ’?f§£¢@§h g/ tiakesh Kumar Tripathi, s/o snri K.L‘;rripathi, aggc‘l about 24 years, R/o gear Ashok Talkies $akti, Bistt. Bilaspur APELLLCENT : T lersus TAa S seajwolzwyn‘ MNMM P §¢Aaa/ 6‘Luwy4 fJazay’fi Vai/qéatA BAaWM , ghopak 1.. The director Public Instructions; MacAnya Pradesh, Bhopal. 3. Joint uirector, Public Instruction, Bilaspur Division, Bilasnur. 3r. The Principal Govt. Eoys H.35 .School Champa, Distt. Bilaspur (ELK) RESKDNBENTS : APPLICéaTION UL§ 19 OF THd A.7. ACT 1985. TI‘E HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Amhotri, J. W.P.S. No. 759 of 2005 1%titioner : Rakesh Kumar Tripathi. Versus Respondents The Director Public Instruch'ons and ”? others. Shri Akhil Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the petit'o‘ner. Shn' Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyer for the State] respondents. ORAL ORDER (2 1“ July, 2006) 1. The petitioner was appointed as Contingency Paid Peon, by order dated 22.6.1992 (Annexure A—5) at the rate axed by the Collector. Thereafter, the appoinhhent of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 26.4.1993 in ‘ View of the memo dated 23.9.1991 issued by the Directorate of Public Instructions, then Government of Madhya» Pradesh and further memo dated 30.3.1993 issued by the Jqint Director, Education, Bilaspur, on the ground that the appointment of the pedtioner was not in accordance withdaggg and as per the constitutional scheme. 2. The constitution bench‘of Supreme Court in the recent judgment in Secretary, state of Karnataka & Others Vs. l Umadevi (a) and Others (2006) 4 soc has cleariy observed that the persons appointed on temporaiy, contractual, casual daily wages employees not appointed A 1: in accmdancé with law and as per the constitutional scheme, have no right to absorption or regularization or re-engagement on the post. In View of thatfthe order dated 26.4.1993 (Annexure A-7) cannot be held as invalid or illegal. Admittedly, in the present case the appoinlment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law, but he was appointed as Contingency Paid Peon. In View of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of - Karnataka as Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006) 4 SCC (supra) no relief can Vbe granted to the petitioner at this stage, after a period of 13 years to reinstate the petih'oner on the post of Peon. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- R i Satish K. Agnihotri j Judge ifv 'te“ ’