c^?'i^- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 WRIT PETITION(S) NO.^^^^/2010. PETITIONER: Chainurain Yadav, son of Lathel Yadav, aged about, aged about 49 years, working as Forest Guard, residence of village and Post Sankra, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents ^^ )pl>"^ ^'^••""^ ^M^y' "> .-•"w\^''r ^^y cV- ^^ '^••••" 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Forest Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Van Sanrakshak, Raipur Circle, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^' 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Dhamtari Forest Division, Dhaintari, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRST PETiTION (S) NQ.2689 OF 2010 PETITIONER Chainuram Yadav RESPQNDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. Present:- Shri CJ.K. Rao and Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. QRQERJQRAL) (Passed on this 14tn day of March, 2011) 1. Heard Jeamed counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner Impugns the order dated 27/04/2010 (Annexure P/1) whereunder the petitioner was removed from semce on being found unsuitabie and the petitioner further impugns the order dated 31/05/2010 (Annexure P/2) by which the appeai preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by Conservator of Forest. 3. The facts, in nuteheli, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed on ctaiiy wages basis in the Forest Department. Thereafter, by order dated 23/01/2008 (Annexure P/3) services of the petitloner was reguiarized. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the punishment imposed on the petitioner for offence punishable under Sectlon 427 of the indian Pena! Code, does not come within the definition of "moral turpltude" and, as such, the ser^ices of the petitloner cannot be removed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. l^£s%.\ ^ t? .^^^ % SSK| J .y( Arun Learned counsei appearing for the State submits that even in the veriflcation form, the proper information was not submitted by the petitioner. Looking to the case from ail angles, even if it does not come within definition of "moral turpitude". The petitioner may be removed at any time from work for which he was engaged on daiiy wages basis. Be that as it may, it is a trite iaw that an itiegai appointee carsnot claim regularization.. continuance or reinstatement In service on the basis of appointment, as the same is not Sn accordance with law and w^s cfe hors the constitutionai scheme of empioyment. (See Secretsry, Stste of Kamataka snd Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others1, Indian Drugs & PhanrwceuScals Ltd v. Worhmen, fndian Drugs S. Pharmaceutlcafs Ltd.2, OfficlalUquidatorv. Dsyanandand others3 and State of Punjab and Others v. Sufjlt Ssngh and Others4). Since the appointment of the petitioner was not on open inviteition of aii the eiigible candidates as requlred under the provisicms of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be held as legai and in aGcordance with law. (See: Sasar^ KumarSshu v. The Sfats ofMadhya Pradesh & Others6). There is no merit on the case and the case is accordingly, dismissed. Noorderastocosts. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1(2006)4SCC1 2 (2007) I SCC 408 3 (2008) 10 SCC 1 4 (2009)98cc 514 5W.P.(S) No.3097 of 2005 (deoided on 3rd March, 2009)