THE HON'BLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT OF JUD1CATUREAT BJi.ASPUR PETITIONER: VEBSUS RESPONDENTS: WRIT PETITtON N^4J/2002. ~T Kedamath Kurmi S/o Shri Clihedilal; aged about R/o ViBage at P.0. Kosttanda, P.S. Champa, Dist: Janjgeer- Champa, Chhattisgarh. OI.Chhatti^arh State Electricity Board, Througb it's Chairman, D^ania, Raipiir, Chhattisgarh. 02. State of Chhattisgarh, Through it's Principal Secretary, Dept. of Energy, State Secretariat, DKS Bfaawan, Raipur, Chhattj^ar&'. 'rit Petitiott under article 226 ofthe constitution oflndia. ^\ -^•<A».' i.t,s^_a'-Q K.S tf!" 1:1;1 '-"€.^'/4 ^ ^•lf-l: fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 911 of2002 PETITIONER : Kedamath Kurmi. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri M.K.Baeg, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 09th day of April, 2010) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioaer was appointed as Helper with the respondent No. 1 in January, 1976. All of a sudden, the petitioner was removed from service in the month of October, 1978 without any notice. Later on, some of the similarly situated employees were taken back in employment, but the petitioner was not taken back. Against the said action, the petitioner made various representations to the respondent No. 1, but ofnb avail. Thereafter, the Minister of Energy and other authorities also recommended for regularisation/reappointment in service but still, the petitioner was .not taken back in service. Shri Baeg further submits that the contention of the respondent No. 1 for not taking back the petitioner in service was that there was a ban on appointment at the relevant time. Thereafter, the petitioner remained in touch with the respondent No. 1 continuously, but till date, the respondent No. 1 has not taken any steps to grant appointment to the petitioner. On the other hand, Shri Yogesh Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioner was appointed as casual labour purely on temporary basis. Further, his appointment was also not in accordance with the constitutional scheme ofemployment. ..ri""^ ^iB :;i ^?l^ ^•» t^:1' -^ y »t:iKS 7. Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, pemsed fhe pleadings and documents appended thereto. The petitioner has neither filed any document nor pleaded in the petition so asto indicate the factasto what was the nature ofhis appointment and what was the mode of his appointment, whether the petitioner was appointed through open competition or otherwise. Thus, for want of relevant materials, the case cannot be adjudicated. Further, admittedly, the petitioner was a casual labour. It appears from the certificate dated 09.02.1979 (Annexure P/l) that the petitioner was appointed for a specific period i.e. from January, 1976 to October, 1978 and he was not appointed in aecordance with the constitutional scheme ofemployment. The issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra as the Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions has made clear that the employees appointed on contracVcasual/temporary basis have no right to continue in service or reinstatement. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as casual labour and not m a.ccordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. The appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporaiy basis. It is trite that a temporary, ad hoc employee/daily wager or casual appointee cannot claim regularization, continuance or 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 ofKarnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others and State ofPunjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others ). With regard to regularisation of the employees working on temporary/contracl/casual basis, the Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), observed as under: "Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule ofequality m public employment is a basic ' (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 2007 (1) SCC 408 3 (2008) 10 SCC 1 4 (2009) 9 SCC 514 w ;;i.';:^i ;-iia, %. •!iB :''(l! feature of our Constitution and since the mle of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee." 8. The above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court has been reiterated by this Court in Ashwani Kumar Verma & Others v. State ofChhattigarh & Another and Somendra Pratap Singh v. The State of M.P. & others Against the order passed in Somendra Pratap Singh (supra), the petitioner therem preferred a writ appeal being W.A. (PR) No. 2077/2008, which was dismissed by the Division Bench ofthis Court by order dated 29.04.2008 af&rming the order passed by the Single Bench. Thereagainst, the matter was taken upto the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.(C) No. 27190/2008 (Somendra Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court affirming the view taken by this Court, vide its order dated 23.03.2009. 9. This Court in Sanjay Patil v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another ' while dealing with similar issue observed that "if the State Govemment has regularized some ofthe daily wagers, not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, this Court cannot issue a positive direction to legalise the illegal appointment on the ground that certain illegal appointments have been legalized/regularized by the employer. 10. In this context, the Supreme Court, in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India , observed as under: 5 WP (S) No.1743 of2009 decided on 28-4-2009 6 W.P.(S) No. 1347 of2005 decided on 26-2-2008 7 WP (S) No.5845 of2009 decided on 9-10-2009 8 (2007) 4 SCC 54 s ..,-?J v^/' "34. It is not a case where appointment was iiregular. If an appointment is irregular, the same can be regularised. The Court may not take serious note of an irregularity within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. But if an appointment is illegal, it is non est in the eye of law, which renders the appointment to be a nullity. " 11. So far as the contention ofthe petitioner that the other similarly situated employees have been regularised, is concemed, the Supreme Court, in State of Punjab & another v. Surjit Singh & Others , reafBrmed the above ratio in the following terms: "39. We would, however, before parting make an observation that the submission of the leamed counsel that only because some juniors have got the benefit, the same by itself cannot be a ground for extending the same benefit to the respondents herein. It is now well known that the equality clause contained m Article 14 should be'invoked only where the parties are similarly situated and where orders passed in their favour are legal and not illegal. It has a positive concept." 12. In view of foregoiag, for the reasons stated hereinabove and applying the well settled principles oflaw to fhe facts ofthe present case wherein the petitioners were appointed purely temporary/casual basis, he is not entitled to any writ/relief. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 14. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agiiifa.,^ Amit (2009) 9 SCC 514