/}F< ^ s- HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR Wnt^PfetitionNp. 2378 pf 2005 Petitioner Ashok Kumar Ojha, aged about 45 year, Son of Late Shri Shiv Kumar Ojha, R/o Tikara Para, Ward No.3, Dongargarh (C.Q.) Versus Respondenfs 1. Secretaiy, Sikh Educaticxa Society, Dongargarh, Distdct Rajaiandgaon C.G, 2» Principal, Khalsa Hj^her Secoiidaxy School, Dongargarh, District RaJDandgaon (C.O.) 3. Head Mistress Khalsa Pdmaxy School (Hindi Medium) Dongargarh, Distdct Rajaandgaon, C.G, 4. Head Clerk, Khalsa Higher Secoxidaiy, School, Dongax^arh, Distdct Rajnandgaon/ C.G. 5, Distodct Educatioxi Officer, Rajniaiidgaoii, Chhattisgarh. WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shn R. K, Jaiswal, Advocate for fhe petitioxuers, Ms Renu Kocher, Advocate for fbe respoadeats No» 1 to 4, Ms Sunita Jaia, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No»5/State. ORDBR (P&ssed on this 10th Day ofApril, 2009) L. Wifh fbe consent of leanied counsel appearing for the partites, the naatter is heani finaUy. S. The petidoner, by this petition, iater alia seeks a writ/directioxi to the respondents No, 1 to 4 to make payment of salaiy finom May, 2004 tiU date. Purther, the petitioner may be treated as permanent Teacher fiTom July, 1997 aad fhirdly, fhe petitioner may be paid salary at par with the State Qovt, employees. $. The case of the petitioner is fhat he was appomted as Teacher on 16,7,1997 (Annexure P/2) on temporguy basis for one academic session. Thereafter, the petitioner has contmued to ^ 4. —1-- work with fhe respondents No. 1 to 4. In May, 2004 fhe petttioner was asked not to work as Teacher, It is ftirfher admitted case of the petitioner fhat no other order has been issued afiter fhe order dated 16.7,1997, Siace fhe petitioner has attempted to work and fhe respQndents No. 1 to 4 have deprived fhe petitioner fix>m workiag as Teacher, fhe petitioner is entitied to salary j&om May, 2004 titl date, Ms Renu Kocher, leacaed coiins^l ap^aring for fhe respondents No, 1 to 4, per contopa, submits fhat ffae petttioner was iiutiaUy appointed on teinporaxy basis for one academic session. Thereafter, fhe term of appoiiitDiexat was never extended. The petitioner used to coiae aad woxfc as Teacher for which fhe payment has already been made. F3X)m May, 2004 the sendces of the petitioner was iiot requircd aad as such he was diseng^ed, Thus, fhe petitioiier is not entifled for any salaxy after May, 2004, Haviag heard leanied counsel appearing for the parties aiid haviag penised the documents appended thereto, it is apparcnt fhat the appoiatment of the petitioner was for one academic year, on temporaiy basis, Thereafter, no order graiitmg extension of tmie was passed. Mere attempt 0x1 fhe part of the petitioner to work as Teacher does not entitle hlm to have aay salary from the employer. Adxmttedly, fhe petitioner>s serviceswere disengaged fix>ia May, 2004 fi>r wN.ch payment has already been rnade. Be that as it may, fhe nature of appomtment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis for one academic sessiou aad the same was not ia accordance wifh rules and as sucfa fhe 7. r-5- petitioner does not acquire any right to the post It is well settled pnnciple of law by a catena of decisions fhat fhe eniployee appointed de-hors fhe constituitionat scheine of employment and not m accordance with law, has no right to contiauation, reiastatemLent or regularteation ia sendce. Thia is also not fhe case of ihe petitiQiier that he WBS legally appoiated, ia accordance with law. It is clearly estabMslied that fhe appoiEitoient of fhe petitioner was not ia accordmice wiffalaw. The Suprcme Court, ia fhe matter of Seeretary, ^tate of Karnatafca and others Vs. Uniadevi (3) and otliers1 observed ia para 47 as under: a47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets enga^gement as a contractual or casual worker aiid the engagement is not based OB a proper selectiton os recogmzed by fhe relevaiit rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequexiees of fhe appoiatment beiag temLporaay, casual or contractual ia nature, Such a person caanot iavoke fhe fheoiy of legitimate expectation for beiag coiifirmed ia fhe post when an appomtment to fhe post could be made only by foUowmg a proper procedure for selection and ia cases conceraed, ixi consultation wiffa fhe PubUc Service Coxnmission, Therefore, the tfaeosy of legttimate expectation cauuaot be successfully advanced by temLporary, contoractual or casual employees, It caiaiiot also be held fhat fhe State has held out any promise while engagiag these persons eifher to contiaue fhem where they are or to make fhem permatient The State canxiot constifciitionaUy make such a promise. It is also obvious that fhe fheoiy caanot be iavoked to seek a positi.ve rcUefof beiag made permaaent in ffae postw * 2006 (4) SCC 1 8. 9. 10. 11. '^, -/f- In the matter of Indian Drugs & Pharmaeeuticate Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Dri^gs & PIiarmaceittlcals Ltd^2, the Suprenie Court observed as under: "34, Thus, it is weU settled fhat tfaere is no right vested ia aay daUy-wager to seek regulanzation. Regxiladzation can only be done ia accordance with the rules and not dehorse the rules. ,,,,^ 35. In Surinder Siogh Jaiuiwal (Dr,) v. State ofJ&K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any right for regularization as rcgularization is govemed by the statutoiy rules." The observaUonj& made by fhe Supreme Court in. the matter of OIIicial Liquidator V». Dayanand aad othe»»3upheld the above referred decision ia Secretaiy, State of Karnatalca and others (supra), Applying the well settled prmciples of law, as stated above, to fhe facts of fbe present case, wherein fhe petitioner was appoiated purely on temiporaiy basis for one acadexDic sessioxi and thereafter his sendces were never extended, the petitioaer has no right to fhe post. In view of fhe forcgQiag, there is no merit ia fhis petition, The petition is dismissed, accordhagly. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur 22007(1)SCC408 3(2008)10SCC1