--& ~v •^ ^^ \^\cro IN THE mpH COTTRT OF JUDICATURE. AT BILASPUR (C.G.) (Service Matter) Writ Petition No. ^os-s /^QQQ PETITIONERS 1. ^-Shankarlal Patel S/o Ganesh RaM aged 32 years (M.A. English M.A. / / /Geograpby B.Ed. Trained N.C.C.-B ^4^/ Grade) Resident of and employee in ^f. /^ v ^/4/v' /.^•w /^v y^ ,? •• <?<-y ^. -po<!i^ ^ll^ Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Govt. Higher Secondary School Adil Block Malkharoda District ^Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ^ ^ o^' •^y ^^' 'o- V ^- Chudamani Sahu S/o Bhagat Ram (M.A.) aged 35 years Lecturer Resident of and eniployee in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Govt. Higher Secondary School Adil Block Malkharoda District -Janjgir ChampafC.G.). 3. Dilchand Bhardwaj S/o R.C, /II JT 1-1 \ II ^: ~:?~-(' - ft^ ^^Bhardwaj (M.Sc..) aged 30 years Lecturer Resident of and employee in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Govt. Higher Secondaiy School Adil Block Malkharoda District -Janjgir Champa (C.G-). 4. Vishwa Vijay Venna S/o Goverdhan Prasad aged 28 years Lecturer ( M.A. and B.Sc.) Resident of and employee in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Govt. Higher Secondary School Adil Block Malkharoda District -Janjgir Charapa (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh through «" ^ .-.', . ' - - t-he Secretary Education (School ) Department D.K. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur Distt. Raipur ^ '^SS^S'SSSS^^S'^^V'- f 2. The Collector Janjgir Champa Distt. Janjgir (Champa) .3. The District Education Officer at and Janjgir Champa Distt. Janjgir (Chanipa) . rtf81 -4. The Chief Executive officer Janpad Panchayat malkharoda tahsil malkharoda Distt. Janjgir Champa . ^. The President Janpad Panchayat malkharoda Tahsil inalkharoda Distt. Janjgir Chainpa (C.G.) ^" 6.. The Principal Govt.Higher Secondary School Adil in the Block and Tahsil Malkharoda Distt- Janjgir ( Champa C.G.) ^ ">~ •.<-^. --^7. The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Adil Block and Tahsil Malkharoda Distt- Janjgir ( Champa C.G.) K' ^ 8. The president janbhagidarisamiti Govt.Higher Secondary School Adil Block and Tahsil Malkharoda Distt- Janjgir ( Chanipa C.G.) . 9. The Block Education Officer Malkharoda Distt. Jajgir Champa . 10 The District Panchayat Janjgir Champa Tharough the President of the District Panchayat (Janjgir ). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. FOR ISSUE OF CERCIQRARY MANDAMUS, PHQHIBITION ETC. OR ANY APPOPMTE WRIT DIRECTION OR ORDER ^p^ HI6H CQURT OF CHHATTCSeARHAT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K.Agnihol'ri. '. P. (S} No. 5053 of 2006 ^Ll.^-Cli Shoinkaria! Patei & others Versus The State of Chhattisgarh <& others Shri J.R. Verma, counsel for the petitioner-s. Smt. Anju Ahuja, &eput/ 6ovt. Adyocate for respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 6,9 & 10. (Passed on 14 September, 2006) 1. This is a co.se where petitioners are seeking continuation and pet-manency in service beyond a period of 4 years, for which they were appointed. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioners were initially a as lecturers/teachers in the school run Janbha9idari Samiti and Panchciyat Adii, Block Ma!kharoda. District Janjglr Champa. 3. On upgradation of the school to higher secondary school, the petitioners were permltted to continue on the same salary fixed by the Panchayat ond Jonbhagidari Samiti by order dated 25.7.2002 (Annexure P/l), with a condition that concemed schoo! would make arrtiingement for their school buiiding and payment of Sdiary to the teachers. 4. The appointment of the petitioners on •the said posts were extended for subsequent academic sessions 2004-05 and .2005-06 in the up-9radated Cir. Bhim Rao Ambedkar 6oyt. Higher Secondary School, 6ram Panchayat, Adil, Block .AAalkharoda, District Janjgir Champa by order dated 30.7.2004 in ca.se of petitioner no. 1 oind by order dated 8.7.2004 in case of other petitioners (Annexure P/3). 'v -~ 5. The petitioners have filed this petition praying that the respondents/State and Panchayat bs directed to grant higher satary as per payment made to re9ulariy appointed lecturers/teachers by the Sovernment ond further services of the petitioners be regularized with grwit of regular pay scale. 6. Shri J.R. Verwa, iearned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that admittedly, the appointment of The petitioner was initialiy for o: period of two ocademic sessions thereafter, it was further extended for two more academic sessions up to academic sessions 2005-2006. The petitioners are entitled to 9ront of pay scale at par with regularly appointed lecturers/teachers by tha ©overnment and -tiie petitioners have fur'fher acquired right to re9utarization with regular pay scaie. 7. Hwing heard the iearned counsel for the petitioner-s and hmin9 perused the pieadings and records appended to the petitioners, it is evident that the appointment of 1+ie petitioners was not in accordance with taw, consistent with the scheme for pubiic employment and after proper invitation and competition ainong the qualifled persons. Thus, the petitioners have no right to regularizction/permcnency or pay scale at par with other lectures/teachers appointed on reQuks- basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Ks.rnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and o'Hiers observed in para 28 as under:- "28. In Director, Institute of Managemsnt Development, U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava this Court hetd that sincs the appointment was on purely contr'actuat and ad hoc basis on consotidated pay for a fixed period and terminable without notice, when 1+ie appointment came to an end by effiux of time, the appointee had no right To continue in the post and to claim regularization in seryice in the absence of any ru!e Droyidino for reguiarization after tiie Deriod of seryice. A limited relief of directlng that the oppointee be permifted on sympathetic consideration to be continued in service till the end of the calendar year concerned was Issued. This Court noticed that when the appointment WGS purely on ad hoc amd contractual bcsis for a limited period, on the expiry of the period, tiie right to remain in the post came to cn end. This Court stated that the view they were taking was the only view possible and set aside the judgment of the High Court which had given relief to the appointee." Further, it was observed in paras 43 and 44 as under:- "43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality jn pubiic employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlookin9 of the need to comply with tiie requirements of Articte 14 read with Articie 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessari'y to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevcnt rules andafter a proper" competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the cypointment comes to an end ct the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or cppointment on daily wa9es or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Simiiorly, o, tetnporary employee could not claim to be mnde permanent on tHe expiry of his term of cppointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary empioyee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond The term of his ccpointment, he voouid not be entitied to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, rperely on the strength of such continuance. if the original appointment was not made by foliowing a due process of setection as enyisaged by the relevant rules. It is not ooen to the court to orevent reqular recruitment at the instance of temporary empioyees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of •Hie Constitution, shouid not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, re9ularization, or permanent continuaince uniess the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of 1+ae constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of cn order of the court, which we have descr-ibed as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of 1+ie Judgment, he would no be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in 1+se service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee cpproaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimateiy no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim dirsction to continue hls employment would hoid up the re9ular procedure for seiection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is reatly not r-equired. The courts must be careful in ensuring thdt they do not in+erfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affai'-s by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselyes the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 44. The concept of "equal poy for equai work" is different from the concept of conferring permanency on 1+iose who hwe .been appointed on ad hoc basis, temporary basis, or based on no process of selection as envisa9ed by the rules. This Court has in various decisions applied the principle of equal pay for equai work and has taid down the parameters for the application of that principle. The decisions are rested on the concept of equality enshrined in our Constitution in the 119'nt of the directive principles in that beha!f. But the acceotance of that Dfinciole cannot lead to a position where the court could direct that appointments made without following the due procedure established by iaw. be deemed permanent or issuedirections to treat them as permonent. C>oin9 so, would be negation of the principle of equality of opportunity. The power to make an order as is necessary for doin9 complete justice in any cause or matter pending before tiiis Court, wouid not nor'mally be used for giving the go-by to 1+ie procedure established by law in the matter of public employment. ...... 10. With re9ard to grant of regular pay scale, the Honble Supreme Court in 1+ie case of M.P. State Textile Cor-poration Ltd. v. Mahendra and others obser'/ed in parc 5 as up.der;- "..............We think that the respondent workmen who have accepted their employment on a contmct, the terms of which specified the pay scale of each of tiiese workmen, [*! '. 11. 12. cannot claim 1+ie pay scale of the appellant Corporotion when their services were rstrenched by Indore Textile. Ujjain."............ The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of National Fsrtilizers Ltd. and others v. Somvir Singh observed in para 26 as under:- "26. It is true that the respondents had been working for a long time. It may atso be true that •tiiey hod not been paid wages on a regular scale of pay. But, they did not hold ony post. They were, therefore, not entitied to be paid saiary on a reguhr scaie of pay. Furthermore, only because the respondents have worked for some time, the same by itself would not be a ground for directing reguiarization of their services in view of the declsion of this Court in Umadsvi (3)'." For- the reasons aforementioned, the petitioners have no right to regulorization and also they are not entitled to grant of hi9her reguiar poy scale for any period. Thus, 1+iis writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1. {(2006) 4 SCC 1} 2. {(2005) 10 SCC 675} 3. {(2006) 5 SCC 493} 15. f(1992) 4 SCC 33}