ff) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISJONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLESHRI SUNU- KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS PETITIONERS WritAppeal No. 12 of 2009 Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Poshan Kumar Yadav S/o Mehettar Ram, aged about 24 years, R/o-Gram Panchayat- Sargaon, Janpad Panchayat- Pathariya, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Lakhan Lal Gandharv S/o Duklha Ram, aged about 36 years, R/o Gram Panchayat—Jevra,Janpad Panchayat - Pathariya, District Bitaspur (C.G.) State ofChhattisgarh, throughthe Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Employment Guarantee Council, Vikas Ayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Rural development, New Delhi. District Programme Coordinatoi- (Collector) under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 t^nker, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat, Pathariya Through the Chief Executive Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Zila Panchayat Bilaspur, Through the Chief Executive Officer, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) &2- WRIT APPEAL UNDERSECTION 2 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVlSION BENCH1 RULES. 2006 Present: Shri F.S. Khare, leamed counsel for the appellants. Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/ respondents No. 1 , 2 and 4. Shri Ajay Baraik, learned counsel on behalf of Shri S.K. Beriwal, learned Standing Counsel for respondentNo.3. JUDGMENT (22ndApril, 2009) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No.01/2009, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration, we are satisfled that the appellants have succeeded in showing suffteient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. N6. 01/2009, therefore, is allowed andthe delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 5) The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 21.07.2008, passed in W.P.S. NOJ751/2007. 6) The appellants/ petitioners were seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for one more year. 7) The petitionerswere appointed as 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' ^njiontractual basis for a period of one year. In the year 2008, n ^3 the respondents initiated recruitment process for the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak'. The petitioners participated in the said selection process. Inspite of grant of weightage of ten marks on account of their past experience on the said post, none of the appellants couldbe selected on a comparative merit of the candidates who participated in the selection process. The petitioners, thereafter, flle writ petition seeking their continuance on thesaid post. 8) The teamed Single Judge considering that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for a limited period and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kamataka & othws v. Umadevi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, held that the petitioners had no right to claim their continuance on the said post and therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 21.07.2(K)8. 9) Shri F.S. Khare, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the appellants'writ petition following the dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Stateof Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (supra) as the saidcase is not applicable to the facts of the presentcase. 10) Admittedly, the appellants/petitioners were appointed on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for alimited periodofone year on contract basis. The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & othersv. Umadevi (supra) has categorieally held jp para 47 that a person appointed on contractual basis for a ,,^^'s ^iii 4 ^ limited period cannot claim his continuance onthe said post after expiry of the cohtract period as a matter of right. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim their continuance on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' as of right. 11) We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the appellants' writ petition was dismissed. 12) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge subba— ft.