A73? w 1%}GE CGURT OF CHHA’YTESGARH A? BEEAS?$R( ,gg > av \VRIT PETITIQN (S) N0. 7533 0f2i§97 9ETI’EIONER : Satyendm Singh S/o Shii Rmjeét Singh. aged about 26 years, Occupatiun — daily wages emyloyee e watemaan - Pubhc Works Department: Nationai Highway, Sub Division Bilaspur, reSidem of Yadunandan Nagan behind MIG ~ 50, B§1a3pun Talusil and District Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS , The State of Chhattisgarh, ihmugh the Secretm‘y, Department of ?ublia Works (Nationai Highway), Mantralaya, D.KS. Bui1ding, Raipur Tamil and Bisirict Raipur (CG) > 2. Tim: Superin‘iending Engineer, Public Works Department, National highway, Circie, Bilasyur, (CG) ‘ The Executive Engineer, Public Works Depamnent, ‘? National Highway, Division, Biiaspur (CG) i 4. The Sub Divisionai Officer, Public Works Deyartment, Nationai Highway, Sub Division, Biiaspm“ (CG) RESPONEuENTS 5)).. WRIT PETETION UNDER ARTXCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTEON OF INDIA SB: Hon’me him Satish K. AgnihotriLJ. Present: Smt. Renu Kochar. Advocate for ihe petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govemment Advocate for the State / respoudents. QRAL ORDER (Passed (mW 39 day of March. 2008) With the cement of the parties, the matter is taken up fer hearing fmaiiy. The petitioner was initiaiiy appointed on 20.05.2(305 (Amexure PH) on temporary basis as Majdoor for a period of 30 days. Thereaiier, the aypointment of the petitioner continued on account of severai ofders passed for his engagement for 3O days, and in some oases for 89 days, on daily wages basis. The grievarzce of the yetitioner is that on 2311.007 (Annexure P/23) the petitioner was appointed from 01.12.2007 to 31.12.2007, but this order was not given effect to as the petitioner was riot appoirrted. Thus, this petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pieadings ané documents appended thereto. @ L)u Ali the orders annexed herewith from Annexure P/l to P/23 are not addressed to the petitioner or any other daily wages empioyee. These are ihe orders permi‘aing engagement of ceitaira employees fer a period of 30 days or §n some cases 89 (iays, to the Executive Engineer, Pubiic Works Department, National Highway Division, Bilaspur. It does not indicate that the petitioner alone or alongwith other persons were engaged as daily wagers to perform some work for a fixed period of 30 days or 89 days On the basis of these orders, submission of the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged throughout, cannot be established. One certificate (ArmeXure W24) has been submitted issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Puhiic Works Department, mentioning that the yetitioner was appointed on daily wages basis from 20.05.2005. There is no mention either with regard to continuation or discontinuation ofthe appointment. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with the eonstitutionai scheme of employment. There was no public notice or advertisement pubiished inviting applications from all the similarly situated petitioners for the job. Thus, it is held that the appointment of the petitioner was dehors the constitutional scheme of appointment and not in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has categorically held that appointment on daily wages, contract and temporary, if not in accordance with law and dehors the constitutional scheme of employment, is not a proper or legal appointment. The petitioner has not acquired any right to the post as his appointment was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of appointment. Recently, in the matter of U.P. Electriciw Board Vs. Purcm Chandra Pana’ey & Othersl, the Supreme Court observed as under: “7, The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21.9.1998 held that there was no ground for discriminating between two sets ofemployees who are daily wagers, namely, (i) the original employees ofthe Electricity Board, and (ii) the employees of the Society, who subsequently became the employees of} .~ the Electricity/«Board when the Society was taken over @ by the Electricity Board. This View of ths learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench ofthe High Court. 17.....We have to read Uma Devi’s case (supra) in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution, and we cannot read it in a manner which will make it in contlict with Article l4. The Constituiion is the supreme law of the land, and any judgment, not even ofthe Supreme Court, can violate the Constitution.” 7. In the matter of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workman, Indian Drugs & PharmaceuticaZs Ltdz, the Supreme Court observed as under: “‘34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily-wager to seek regularisation. Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not dehors the rules. In E.Ramakrishnan v. State ofKericz this Court held that there can be no i reguiarisation dehors the rules. The same View was taken in Kishore (Din) v. State QfMaharashtra, Union oflndz’a v. Bishamber Duff. The direction issued by the Services Tribunal for regularizing the service of persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working regulariy for a long time. 35. In Snrinder Sing}: Jamwal (Dix) v. State ofJ&K it was held that ad hoe appointment does not give any right for regularisation as regularisation is governed by the statutory rules.” 8. Further, in the matter of State of UP. and others Vs. Desk Raf‘, the Supreme Court observed as under: “7. Whatever may be the import and purport of such regularisation rules, in View of the recent Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Secy., State 0f Karnataka Vs. Umadevz’, it is now well settled that the / \ ' k0. 1 2‘ 3 d have been made by Pradesh in derogation of the oonstitutional scheme” Applying the well settled princip the case, the petitiooer cannot clai in service on the basis of his aypointme in accoréanc empioyment. Acco lation ofthe constitutional unéer Article 14 and cum be rendereé sation rules, the State of Uttar Siatutary or a les of law as stated above to ihe facts of m any regularization or reinstatement nt? Which was temporary and not e with iaw and dehors the constitutaonal scheme of rdijlgly, the petitiori is dismissed. No order asto costs. 1 ' sw— (1007) Am saw 69m {2667) 1 SCC 4G8 (2007) 1 sec 257 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ‘ apyointmen’ts, if made in Vio scheme of equality as enshrined 16 of ole Congtitution of India... w megal and, thus, void ab initio. No regulari morefore, c0111 \