1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDI€ATURE AT BILASPUR ‘ (CHHATTISGARH) $m§§ @@mh WRIT PETITION gS! NO. [glO /2009 /, PETITONER: Dr. Lekhram Sahu S/o. Shri Motifram Sahu, Aged about — 42 years, . Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Pondum, Dantewada, District — Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS 1. @te of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department of Public Health & Family Welfare, /§.,r‘” ‘ D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, ' Raipur (C.G.) / 2. The Collector, Dantewada, District—Dantewada (C.G.) 3./The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dantewada, District-Dantewada (C.G.) 4. ‘Tlie Superintendent & District Ayurvedic Officer, South Bastar, District—Dantewada (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Samvida Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari Sangh, RESPONDENTS: \9 Through its President Kauéw CAN/K 41V mm — (meg/Low . Dr. Smt. Nanda Sahu, Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District—Raipur (C.G.) . Dr. SK. Juvel, Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, j’ Mana, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) r . Dr. Mohan Lal Dewangan, Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Sondra, Raipur, Distric‘t-Raipur (C.G.) /’ 9. Dr. Shesh Narayan Chandrakar, Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Kharenga, Dhamtari, /. District-Dharntari (C.G.) 10. Dr. Anand Prakash Vishwakarrna, Ayurvedic Chikjtsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Tarhul, Kanker, District-North Bastar (C.G.) 1(Dr. Dr. Ramji Thakur Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Pendravan, Durg, District—Burg (C.G.) ff.” Dr. Leeadhar Hirwani, Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari. Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Desrangpur, Kawardha, District-Kabirdham (C.G.) (I, l3. Dr. Panna Lal Vasnik, Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Shukuldohan, District-Raj nandgaon (C.G.) M, 14. Dr. Narendradeo Verma, Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Selud, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) 15. Dr. Tessem Bajaj, y, Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Khallari, DistrictuMa‘nasamund (C.G.) /. 16., vDr. Hemlal Patel, / Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Khopli, Durg,District—Durg {C.G.) / 8 @ l7. Dr. Padamchand Jain, Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Govt. Ayurvedic College Hospital, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) / l8. Dr. Ravindra Narayan Pandey, Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Chandrakhuri, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 19. Dr. Vidhyabhushan Verma, Ayurvedie Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Taksiwa, Durg, District-Burg (C.G.) . Dr. K.K. Shukla, Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Ulnar, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.) Dr. G.L. Kalihari, Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Kusumkasa, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) / 20 21. RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W ?ei§timner Dr. Lek’nram Sahu H¥G§i COURT OF CHHATW$GARH faT BILASFI§R WRI? ?ETF§‘§ON {S§ ND. 182% OF 2§9$ Versus Siam of Chhattisgarh 8: Others Respondents WRIT PETtQN Tt UNDER ARTICLE 226/22? OF THE CONSTiTUTlON OF lNDlA i$§ : Hoagbie Mr. $a€i$h K. Agnihoiri, Ju} P?esem :u 8hr: Vimlesh Bajpai. Advocate forthe petiiioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar; Panei Lawyer for ihe State/ mspondents No.1 to 4, ORDER (SEAL) (Passed 0n 177‘“ day of January, 201 1) By this petitian, the petitioner seeks a direction t0 the Staie respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner, as the same has been done in case of eimiiariy situated respondents No.6 to 21. The indisputabie facts in brief are that the petitioner is an Ayurvedic Qootor and he was appointed on contract basis on 2QZ2GO3. Thereafter, his engagement continued on the basis of orders passed on 11022066, 22.02.2007, 14.02.2008 & 18.02.200g for extension of hts contract period. The respondents No.6 to 21 are similarly situated employees and they have been regularized. Thus, non-regularization of the petitioner is disoriminatory, arbitrary and vioiative of right to equatity under the provisions of law. On the other hand; Shri Shridhar, learned counsel appearing for the State/ respondents No.1 to 4 wouid submit that the petitioner cannot ciaim equality in a case. where, even it the case of the petitioner is that the contract appointee have been regularized, who are simitarly situated. the appointment of the petitioner was tor a fixed period of 7. R) coniraci, which was extended time to time arxd petitioner has not acquired any right on the basis of extension of his contract period. Having heard learned oounsei appearing for the petitioner as weii as State, iaw in this respect is weii settied, as the contract appointment tor a fixed term cannot be heid as appointment in accordance with the constitutional scheme of empioyment. The practice has been condemned in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v, Umadevi {3} and ofhers1 which was foiiowed subsequentiy in severe! decisions in respect of the discrimination. The Supreme Court; in State of Bihar v, Upendra Narayan Singh & Others? observed as under: “$7. By now it is settled that t’ne guarantee of equaiity before iaw enshrined in Artioie 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. it an iiiegaiity or irreguiarity has been committed in favour of an individuai or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court tor repeating or muitipiying the same irregularity or iliegality or for passing wrong order - Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjr'f Singh, Jaipur Devei'opment Authority v. Dewar Ma! Jain, Union of indie v. J.V.Subhaiah, Gurusharan singh v. NDMC, Stare of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, Fandabad CT Scan Centre v. DGHealth Services, Style {Dress Land} v. UT, Chandigarh, State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Union of indie v. international Trading Co. and Directorate of Film Festivais v. Gaurav Ashwain Jain.” This Court has considered in Sanjay Patii v. State of Chhan‘isgarh & Others3 and Asnwani Kamar Verma & Others v. State of Chnai‘risgarn & Another" holding that “if the State Government has reguiarized some of the daily wagers, not appointed in accordance with the constitutionai scheme of empioyment, this Court cannot issue a 1 3 Decided on 9&02009 in WPIS) Not5845/2009 4 Decided on 28.4.2009 in W.P.(.S) No.1743120G9 i 2006 (4) soc 4 t3! (2009‘ 5 soc a5 " U) w positive direction to Eegaiise the illegai appointment on the ground that certain itiegai appointments have been legalized! regularized by the employef’. The Same is applicable to the facts of the present caSe also, even if some contract appointee have been regularized, that cannot be the ground claiming discrimination as their regularization itseif may not be iegal. For the reasons stated heretnabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto coets. k 1 r .V Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri ”Judge ‘ ‘7 7 7 t K1,;WJ