TTTnTT ^'riI'T^T' ..f^TT' •C<T7TJ A TTI'sr^A T?TJ ,1 T' ^TT A £!T?TT"0 X11^3"rl i^.^JUi'e.l ''Uti :*-/X3-i3-Al i Ai3^yA£€J~lA i, ISii^A^l''"^. £€. S.i S.JO. JUSTICE K. ^A7r?7T 'DTr'm~7-<"s^T .f'Q^. ^'^ •3'^'ii.< ^^ ^nQCT yv M.1 A flL 1 i 1 A^Ji^ ^ Si 1^0. ^<3^?5 01 ^siJU / PETITIONER j^tilKW iS IOJNJAM AGED -43 YEARS, S/0 SOWAU RAM KIJNJAM POSTED AS - ASSTT. PROFESSOR. AT • - GOVT. COLLEGE, NARAYANPUR, r^T^TU^'r'^T _ R A CTPX? {r-C^\ UiiS 1 K.1^- 1 — Qr\.S 1 £^^i \^/AJ. i 1 STA TA'TK ftF f'RI-IATTISif^A'RT3 ^.-:^. 1 S:j '^^'£ •^i.^^.^-.-l. Z A l.O^T.r^-XXfl-I.. THROUGH rTTT? C'TJ'^Ts~"rT- A T^\T 'i'WT; •< - DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MANl D.K.S. BHAWAN. RAIPUR. 2. /^ T^: 'T^ A ^. '"'?• iSISTANT PROF mi .T :T;nT: 't^- »^-i'-Lji-/J--;^J 1. S 01? Ar Os-^i'\-> 2~^ V 1 TRICT B. CHARAMA TER (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A - 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. P..,.»SP-T- J_ •i.jyvlii.- Shri R.K.Kesharwani. Advocate for.the petitioner. Shri Aiay Dwivedi. Panel Lawyer for the State / respondent i^r iis^cu uii lu ua.v ui ^ujiii; ^w-f ^ bv fnis petrtion, me petraoner cliallenges tne iesalrtv aca validity ofthe order dated 25.01,2007 (Arinexure p/7) passed by the Avar Sachiv. Govemment of Cfihatdsgam, Higher Educatioii DepartmenL Raipur. The facts. in nutshei! is that fae was aDnointed with resnondent no. 2 on the post ofAssistant Professor on 23" December, 1989. The resoondent no. 2 was reeuiarised with efTect from' 24.12,1998 whereas fhe oetitioner has been regularised with effect fi-om 18,01,2006. The netitioner and respoiident no, 2 were anpointsd on the same dav. The netitioner was not reeularised in tlie vear 1998 when responderrt 110. 2 was rsgularised. Tnus a discriminatorv treatment has been meted out to the Detitioner and for tliat the petitioTier has made a representation (Annexiirs P;6) to llae Comniissioner, Higher Education, but nothing faas been done so far, Being aggneved, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2593 of 2006 (Sakha Ram Kuiijam Vs. Stats of Chhanisgarii & another) ia this Court. This Court, vide ordsr dated 20.06.2006 granted permission to the petiti.oner to make a detailed rapresentation to the Secretary, Higher Educa.tion DepartBient, Mantralaya, Raipur for dsciding the same within a period offour months from the dste ofreceipt oftiie renresentatioa. The State Govemment. vide imnugned order dated 25.01.2007, dismissed the representation on the eround mat fhe other colleaeue namelv Kamlssh Kumar Markam was reeularised on 24.12.1998 bv the tiaen State of M.P. befbre creatioa of tlie State of Chhattisgam. The petitioaer faas not taken any step till 18.01,2006 wliaa tfae netitioner aloaswith 103 fiersons wers regularised. Prayer for regularisation with efrect from 24,12.1998 cannot be sraiite" at this staee, Shri R.K.Kesl'iarwani. learned counsei apDearing for ths petitioner submits tfaat tfaere 33 discnmina'aon between tiie Detationer aau other similai'lv .situgted co-emplovse Shri Ka^iissh Kumar Marieam, There is 210 other around raised bv tfce Detitioiier excer't thgt othsr co-essployee who was suniiariy situated was granted regulansaTion with effect from 24.12.1998, The admitted fact is .that the petitioiier alongwith others were aiiooiated on emeresncv basis vide order dated 23.12.1989 i'Annexure p/l'). The aDDoiiittnent of the netitioner was not 111 accordance with law a-iid contrary to the constitutional scheme of J ths employment. The appointment was not due to proper selection after invitmg all eligible candidaies to participate in the open competitioc. The initia! appoiatmeiit ofthe petitioner itself was not in accordance with 2aw, tlias, the petitioner has not acquired any right.It is trite that ifthe appointment itselfis bad, the employee cannot claim resularisation on the basis ofthe said appointment. Looking from a!l the aiieles, the other emplovee was regularised on 24.12.1998 ths petitioner has not taken aay step till tfae State of Cfahattisgarh regularised ths sendces of the petitioner alongwith 103 ouier employees on 18.01.2006. Looking from all aHgles, there is no merit in this petition. Thus, fhis oetition deserves to be and is dismissed accordinelv. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge