IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARI-I AT BILASPUR PETITIONER . . WP, (S) No.--.-£?Z§3210f 2010. / Ramraksha Jaiswal, aged about 40 years, Son of Shri Rajmani Jaiswal, R/o Workshop Attendant, Woman Industn'al Training Institute Korba,(C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS :/’ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary, Takniki Siksha, Jan Sakti Niyojan Vibhag, Vigyan Awam Pradyogiki Vibhag D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur,(C.G.). . In Charge / Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, Bayron Bazar Raipur,(C.G.). . The Join Director, (Regional) Saraswati Nagar, Doctor’s Coloney Pratap Chauk Bilaspur, (C.G.). The Superintendent— Women Industrial Training Institute Korba, (.C.G.). / '5. Collector, Korba, District Korba, (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION, OF INDM FOR THE ISSUANCE OF . WRIT [N THE PROHIB #x—‘F‘ DIRECTION OR WRITS ORDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTIONS; NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI ITION AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATIBILASPU ‘ WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2932 of 2010 : RamrakSha Jaiswal. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2;6/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I ‘ SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotrii J. Present: Shri R.K.Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents ORDER (ORAL 1 (Passed on 20“ day of January, 201 I) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.01.2006 (Annexure P/5). passed by the respondent No. 5 whereby the order dated 11.01.2005 absorbing the petitioner as Contingency Employee and regular pay scale was granted to him, was cancelled without affording opportunity of hearing. Further, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to fix the salary and regularize the petitioner three years later from the date of appointment and to pay the difference amount, arrears and all monetary funds related to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Workshop Attendant in the Women Industrial Training Institute, Korba on 23’12.l99l on temporary basis n ‘for a period of 89 days at the Collector’s rate. Subsequently, the \ petitioner was regularized in service which is evident from the order ta . \ dated 10.04.1992 (Annexure P/3) and 11.01.2005 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, the Additional Collector, Korba,_ by order dated 30.01.2006 has cancelled the order of regularization dated 10.04.1992 stating that the petitioner is not a I.T.I. diploma holder. Shri Jaiswal submits that since the petitioner was already regularized Vide order dated 10.04.1992 and thereafter, by order dated 11.01.2005, the subsequent action of the respondent authorities by cancelling the order of regularization is arbitrary and discriminatory. Shri Jayaswal further submits that earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the order dated 30.01.2006, in W.P.(S) No. 6583/2008. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a better petition. Thus, this petition. 3. On the other hand, Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the initial appointment of the petitioner itself 'was for a period of 89 days at the Collector’s rate. Thereafter, the State Government decided to regularize the service of the petitioner, however, when it was revealed that the petitioner was not having any diploma certificate in I.T.1., the order of regularization was cancelled. Thus, there is no infirmity or irregularity. The petitioner was never regularized in service. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not having the requisite qualification for his absorption 0n the post of Workshop Attendant. 4. Shri Roy further submits that though, the order dated l 1.01.2005 was passed granting permission to absorb the services of the petitioner i 'with regular pay scale, but the actual proper order to that effect was never passed and the petitioner continued in the same capacity. x \ \ . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. . It is an admitted position that the petitioner was initially appointed on Collector’s rate for a period of 89 days. Thereafter, by order dated 10.04.1992, passed by the Superintendent, Women Industrial Training Institute, Korba, the services of the petitioner was directed to be continued until further orders. On 11.01.2005, the petitioner, on account of having completed three years continuous service, was approved for absorption on the post of Workshop Attendant by the order passed by the Additional Collector. However, by ‘order dated 30.01.2006 which is impugned herein, the Additional Collector, has cancelled the order of regularization on the ground that for appointment on the post of Workshop Attendant, passing of I.T.I. is a necessary requirement and the petitioner was not having the diploma in I.T.1. . In the return, the respondent/State has categorically stated that as per Schedule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Audyogik Prashikshan (Chaturth Shreni) Sewa Bharti Niyam, 2005, the requisite qualification for the post of Workshop Attendant are as follows: 1. Middle School (8m class) passed from the recognized board. 2. Certificate in concerned trade passed from All India Craftsman certificate examination or certificate from Trade Apprenticeship Training Examination. Working experience in the concerned trade for at least three years. @ 8. The order dated 11.01.2005 provides for permission to “absorb the petitioner with grant of regular pay scale, however, in fact, no order t that effect has been passed. The petitioner has neither pleaded nor established that he Was ever paid regular pay scale. Thus, for want of the order of absorption and grant of regular pay scale, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 9. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was regularized by order dated 10.04.1992, but the said order provides. only for continuation of service, and not for regularization. 10.It is a trite law that a temporary, ad hoc employee/daily wager or contract appointee cannot claim regularization, continuance or v reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and the same was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others vs. Umadevz' (3) and Others], Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drags & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.2, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and 0thers3 and State ofPunjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others4). 11.Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. l2.No order asto costs. 1i Sd/ //‘ Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge 1 2 (2006) 4 scc 1 3 (2007) 1 scc 408 4 (2008) 10 scc 1 (2009) 9 scc 514 t. o