GS>0 f..i r- ^ •^. IN THE HIGH CCURT O? JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G,), WRIT FETITICN N0. -^iS OF 2003 BETl^SEN 1. /2- ^. /^.^ M' S^nt Ram S/o Bu<3hram Suryavanshi^ aged aboufe 52 years^ Wrking as labourer on daily wages in water Besoijirce Department ^ R/o Village s©mri,Post Sighori, Qistrict Mlaspur. Keja R^n §/o Erem^ aged about 45 sears^ Wrking as labourer on daily wages in Water Ba^urce Depart^^ent^ itesident of Village S^narAal^ Post Office Sernaral^District Bilaspur, slgan Prasad S/o Ramadhin aged about 45 years Wrking as labourer on daily wages in Water R@source I^partrn^it^ Resident of Village Sanri District Bilaspur (CG). Mangat Ram s/o Mehattar aged about 45 years WDrking as labourer on daily wages in mter I^source Depax'toienfc^ Resic3ent of Village Semri, Dd.stric-fc Bilaspur (CG) • Santu Ram S/o Mehattar aged about 50 years^ Wrking as labourer on daily wages in Water Resource Departn^nt^ Resident of Village Se^ri District Bilaspur, Jaggu S/o Paran ag@c3 about 45 years^ WDr5<ing as daily wages labourer in V^&ter ResourGe DBpartament^ Resident of Village Semri District Bilaspure Pheku Ram §/o Ghanaram aged about 48 years Wrking as daily wages labourer in Water I^sources D@Part?nent^ Resident of Village Bharari^ District Bilaspur (CG) <• ^^^S:.^S£l 'x. ^ s s 02 :: 8. 9. PardeshiLS/o Paras Ram aged about 41 years Wbrking as daily wages labouirer In Water Resourc^ Department^ Resident of Village Sharari^ District Bilaspur (CG)< SD^Khi Lal S/o Sarha aged about 42 years Wrkixig as daily w^0Qs labourer in Water Itesource partment^ Resident of vill^ge a^ararly Distriet Bilaspur (CG). Ghait R^T^ S/o Miiaoo aged aboat 46 years^ 1/fcrking as dai-ly wages latourer^ in Water Resouroe Department, Resident of village Eharari, Distrj.ct Bilaspur (CG) • lle Kushal S/o Saxkha aged aboufc 47 years^ Wrking ^s daily wsges labouers in 7rfater Resource E^partment, Resldent of Village Pandarwa District Bilaspur (CG)• ^y^^^^ ^"^^."^%.. '/' v: PBTITIONERS A N D 1. 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, r0npoug'h the §ecretary Departoient of l^ater Resources^ Mantralay^ D^K,s,Buil<3ing /Raipur (CG). / / The Qngineer^in-Chief^ Water Resoarces Depar&nent^ Raipur^ Tehsil and Disfcric-b Raipur (CG) • ...03 (^- St 03 <$ 3. The Claief Eagineer Hasdeo Kachhar^ Water Resources Department^ Bilaspiir, Tehsil and Districfc Bilaspur (CG) • 4^ / The Execative Eagiaeer^ Kharang Water Reseiirces Deparfcment^ Bilaspur^ Tehsil amd Disbrict Bilaspurf 5¥ The sab Divisional offiaer* KMararag Bater Resoiirces Deparbment^ Sar^ey Sab Diyision ^ Bilaspury Tehsil aad District Bilaspxar (CG) • ^ RESPOETDENTa WRIT PETITION UHDER ARTXaLES 226/227 QF TEIE C^tSTITUTlON OF INDSt 'iAF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH ; HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. t-.." WRIT PETITION N0.718 OF 2003 Petitioners Respondents versus Sant Ram and others The State of Chhattisgarh and others Present Mr. Shaitendra Dubey, counsel forthe petitioners. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Government Advocate forthe respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on 15m of November, 2006) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as daily rated employees on contingency fund in the year 1978. It is admitted case of the petitionere that the appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment or under any rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India inviting apptiGations from all the eligibte candidates. In the present case, the petltioners seek a writ/direction to the respondents to regularise services of the petitioners with effectfrom 1-1-1984. 2. The Supreme Court, white dealing with the matters of daily wagers, acf hoc employees, probationers, temporary or contractuai ©mployees, not appointed fotlowing the procedure laid down under Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of Inctia, held that such appointments dehors the constitutional scheme amounts to back door entry in the matter of public employment. 3. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. UmQdevi (3) ancf ottwrs has laid down ciear enunciation of law which was followed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court. Some are Awour^s OfRc^r (A&l) A.P.SRTC and others vs. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao and others2 and Surinder Prasad Twari vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others3. 4. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and offte/s vs. Umactevi (3) and offiers (Supra), the Supreme Court observed as under:- "45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent. the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable Jength of time. tt Js not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature. is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepte the employment with open eyes. It may be frue ttiat he is not in a position to bargain - not at arm's tength - since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his iivelihood and accepte whatever he gets. But on that ground atone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appolntment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got empioyed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing ^o so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissibte." "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and th© engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, h©is aware of the consequences of the appointmerrt being temporary. casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for setection and in cases concerned. in consulteition with the Publte Service Commission." 5. For the reasons above-stated and as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioners are not entitted to absorption/permanent status or regularization in the serviee. 6. costs. This petition is accordingly dismissed. hto order as to Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2006) 7 SCC 488 3 (2006) 7 SCC 684 Gopal