o •>'^ 3" _A.. t ® W!§T : iir^cr3T TIO^-O 9-?Tr?if^7'yfij^w Tr^T, jH'frftms| ^r^^^^^)°L me~^ CTPT ^R?I fq^ HTrfrWs? 3Tr?H. ^Ta^SSSJ^ 1 II-C/ Fjjed ioday. ^""-^^^ 1 For .R^gistraf, M, P, Staie A^m, Trfbuna!, HAIPUR. ^r?Tf?Tcn srfy^^i 3fTyf?pT^i 1995 gft QTTT 19 ^ y=c:pfH 3frSi^~ q-5[ | !/ ir^q) ^r ^ra wr q-rfr - 3?=rs-^r ^r^ ^£IPT=I iro ^T^r?T STFTH prm f?pgr qir WR ?ir?i ^ iTTre- Pir^ir^T =PTT fbjprr- Tr^r^rrq jB-F?rr?Rg| 2/ £^ff_^I_T?I?D? - -^ ^ HTrft^Tg' 3Tr?R ^rrr : ^f^, T^[ fgiyr BTFfT^g- ^T^ TF^T gBTrftW HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATnSOARH: BILA8PUR Sin^e Bench: Hon^ble 8h»iSattsh K. Agttaiotri»J. W. P. (81 No. 3427 of 2005 Petitioner : Manharan Lal Devangan Versus Respondent ; State of Chhattisgarh Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Adv<x?ate for fhe petitfoaer. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Paael lawyer for fhe rcspoiident. ORALORDBR (27*** Jnly, 2006) 1, The petitioner was appoiated on fhe post of Lower DMsion Clerk, tem.porarily, for a period of89 days on 13,1,1995 (Annexure A/2), ttll regularfy appoiated psrson is appoiated on fhat post. 2. The sewice of fhe {^titioner was discontmued on 10.9»2000 (Aiinexure A/4) m accoidance witfa fhe terms of fhe appointment onler. No right accnied iii favour of fh.e petitioner as his apiwitttnieHt was not ia accordaace wifh fhe law and as per fhe constitutional scheme. 3. The Supreme Coiul in fhe case of Secretary, State of Kariuitaka & others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others < (2006) 4 SCC l}, in pam 53 hss held as under:- e53, ..,,.. ...<..., The cjuestion of regulcuissation of the s^rvices of such employees may haue io be considered on merits intlw light of the prindples settled by Ihis Court in the cases ctboverefered to and in the Ught of this judgment. In that contejrf, the Union of Indict, the State Govemmenfs and their instrumjentalities sheyuld take steps io regulanze as a one-iime measure, the services of such irregularly appoinfed, who have worked for ten years or more m didy sonctionedposts but rwt under cover of orders of the courts or of tfibunals cind shouldfurther ensure that regulcir ^ ff. Thakur recruitments are undertcsken tofill thDse vaccml sanctwngQTposts thai recpjdre to befSled up^ in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The prooess must be set in motion wiihin six nwnths fi'om ihis date. We ateo <darify that regularizalion^ if any already made, but not sub jwSce, need rwt be reopened based on ihisjudgmen^ but there should be no jurtfwr bypajssing of the constitutional reqwremeni and regulwsing or making pennanent^ those not duly appointed as per the cofzstitutioncd scheme. 4, In view of fhe dictum laid down by fhe Supreme Court m fhe above judgment and order, I do not find any merit m fhis petition, The petition is dismissed. However, fhe rcspondent is directed to consider fhe case of fhe petitioner as per directioii of fhe Supreme Court, as stated above, as one tfcme measurc^ in accordaiice wifh law. No oider as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge