APPELLANT: PETiTiONER - -Ver$us— Ajmer Singh Dhruv, Aged about 4O years, S/o Shri Agnu Ram Dhmv, Occupation Guruji, Resident of Viilage Chikhli! Tahsii Garéyaband, District Raipur (CG) - RESPONDENTS: 1. State 0f Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D.K.s. Bhawan, Mantraiaya‘ Ra§pur, District Raipur£CG) 2. Ziia Par§yojna Samanvyak, Zila Shiksha Prathmik Karyakaram " Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) 3, The Cottector, Raipur, Tahsit & Distrtct Raipur (CG) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Raipur(CG) 5. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chikhii, District Raipur (CG) 6t Ariun Singh, S/o Rati Ram Dhruv, aged about 31 years, R/o Viiiage Kurrubhatha, Post Matgaon, Tahsii and P.S. Gariyabahd, District Raipur (CG) I—HC—7 8 mm (Wg) ‘ Qn mwW ammm mwmm L— \ DMsion Bench: Hon: Shri Dhirendya Mishm & Hon. Shari RN. Chandrakar, JJL 28-7-2gGSZ— Smt. Sudha Agrawai, cour isei for the appeilant. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with Shri SK. Mishra, Panel Lawye! for the State. Heard on LA. No.1, appii this appeal as we“ as on admiss Tms appeal is directed against the order dated 4m September, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 092/2004 whereby the writ petition fiied by the appellant has been dismi eed with the ioliowing observations:- “4. Pursuant to resemtion jdated 30.07.02 (Annexure P15), the accordance petitioner was with appointed! iaw and riot against after inviting the vacant applications post, from not all in the eligible candidates, arid as such the appointment of the petitioner was not legal add he nae no right to the post. Even otherwise, the vacancy atose on account of removal of the respondent No.6, who uitinnateiy succeeded in appeal and the respondent authorities Were directed to reinstate the respondent No.6 in the post. Thus, the petitioner has no right to the post. 5. Be that as it may, once the appointment of an employee is found iiiegal and unconstitutionai, he cannot be permitted to oontinue or re—appointedion any ground. Admittedly, the :ation for condonation of delay in tiling 0n. mowinfa‘Qm armm WW at 200 appointment of the petitioper was not in accordance with the ng/ i t NJ, r i wdwwvvawwxwww 'mmnmi Jw Wm W 200 mm<ma> Waféam 3t E constitutional ssheme employment as enshrined under Articie 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia. Thus, apnointment of the petiti ner itse§f is mega! (See Secretary, Stéte of Kamataka and o hers V. Uma Devi (3) and others‘) After going through th impugned order and hearing iearned counsel for the appellant, we fi d no substance in this writ appeal, which is barred by limitation, the s me deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed in iiminei Sd/- é: R.N. Chandrakar‘ Judge mail, l ‘ (2006) 4 scc 1