SS. HI® 03URT OF MAQHYA'- PRADESi AT lABM^S. ^' •..}'•• Jan Swasth-ya.Rakshak Sang, Raipur (M S> .) Thraugh its President Badri P.0. Khudanuda, Tahsil Distt. Ourg. 2. Badrl aged about 45 years; Siri Nanhe Ran P.0. Khudamuda, TabsU Barl Distriet Ourg (M J'.) , Jsewanlal, aged about 42 Son of Sirl Resident of Akoli, Tahsil District Durg (M ^ ,) . Manthir Koshik, aged about 47 years, son of Shri Bholca: Koshik, resident ef Village Kapsada, Tahsil Qhanda, o 9 Ra-nnath Sahu aged about ' Son of Late prgnlal Saha Tahsil Barla, ^s^^SiS z, rfi'ri^ 1 :ctfl^W; %^;>. e_r 1a State of Madhya Pradesh Public Health & Family Welfare Department, of.M'. P., Qram Panchaya't AAoll Tahsil Barla, Bahaduri, aged about 27 Residait of Akoli, Tahsil Barla, . . - District Durg (M 3> ,) « Subhash, aged 25 years, Son Qt Sirl Muratdhwaj, Resident of Village Acoli Bacs Tahsil Barla,. ., - District 3urg (MJ>.). If 90 V 9 'SIITIONSR UX)S& ARTICLE 226 OF THS, COciSTITuTXON OS? ii^ HiGiH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR ^ ^. j^^ f^y 's~^ s»=*"*^--iL-*^l; /-^ »y !fc S/*^> ^»(-^^*ttrfth* /^ ?" ^ art»^-- 'iA/R!T PETITION N0. 3992 OF 1SSS PETITIONERS RESPONDENT Jan Swasthya Rakshak Sana & Oth ers Versus te of Madhya Pradesn & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of t Singie Bsnch : Hon'ble Shri Si tituiion of tndia) ) K. Aanihotri, J. Present;- Shri Vinay Pandey, counse! tbr the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passsd on this 12"' day of March, 2010) Heard. ; ; 1) By this petition, t'he petit'oners seek a directlon to the responderit authorities to seieciand appoint them on the post of Jan Sv/asthya Rakshak and the petitioners also seek,a direction to cance! the seiection ofthe resDondents No.3 and 4. 2) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners submlts that the petrtioner Nos.2 to 5 were emptoyed by the Union of India on the post of Jan Swasthya Rakshak at honorarium of Rs.50/- par month. Thereafter. the Gram Panchavat, Akoii invited the'aoDiication for seiection of Jan Swasthva Rakshak. Without conducting proper interview and the selection orocess the candidates of tne choice of the respondent authorities have been appo'.nted, as. a resuit of which thecandidates who are having the requisite quaiification and experience have not besn selected and the petitloners have, thereafter. been removed from the said post. Thus, thls oetition. ICifr . •• .•c '3!' :• :" % On the otMei'.hand,-1earned counsfet appearing forthe State submits that :the pe'Sitionere, were .not appointed in accordance with the ponstitutionai scheme of empioyment, as the petitioners were appointed on honorarium 'basis. Even'the ser»i6es of the aailv wager colild be terminated at any point oftime without any notice, and thus, the pefitioners are not entitled So anv reiief. 4) Ths issue inv6ived in th®present petltion is no Songer res Integrs as the Supreme Court;'ln a'catena.'of decisions has made ciear that the emolcvees aDDointed on temporarv basis have no right to continye 'in service or reguiarization. The appointment, being de Iwra^the constitutiona! scheme'of empiovment, is lllegai. It'is the ca^ ofthe petitioners that their appointments were made on foliowina due seiection Drocess,.bv invitina open applications. sputaDiv, tne ;ed on temporan/ basi; and not in ' accordance with the constitutionai scheme of employmeht. The appointment of the pstitioners was pureiy on honorariurh basis. A {emporarv,,ao"hoc empSoyee.'daity v.'ager cannot ciaim reauiarization, continuance or reinstatement in seroice f^'VM^tf^,^3rr\r^w^^\y\v •• . t. F, a^t^ tp^%*\ lAf/^c^ ^'f^^v^.v^f^yf^r^p f^y^ I^HS DSS1S OT' Spp01HI!Ti©HI,::'¥^R3GPiW8S nc©nipcrsfy sr accordance with law and the. same v»as de hors the constiti sc'neme of emDiovment. (See Secretery, Si'ate of Karnatak Others vs. Umadevi ?'3) and Others', Indian Dru PharmaceLttjcais Ltd. v. Workmen, indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Lto'/, 0 cial Liauidator v. Dayanandand oihers" and Punjab and Ofhers v. Sti'rjitS'ngh and Off'ers'}. ; (2006)48cci . '22007(1',SCC408 • .3 ,/'7nnfl^ -in c;^r^ -' • - ^uuOi iu o^»^ i • " (200S)3SCC514 f'. This Court sn Sanjay Patii v. Stateof Chhattisgarh Ss Anothef', whiie deaiina with simiiar issue obsewed that "jf the Stafe Government it apDoint has regularized sorne of accordance with the constitutional. scheme of employment, this Court cannot issue a oositive direction to leanlise the illeaai t certain iileaai aDpointi intment on ine been legalized/reguiarized bv the employer, 7) in view of foregoing, for the reasons stated hereinabove and aDDlvinc the well settied orincigles of !aw to the facts of the oreserit case wherein the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary faasis, he is not entitled to any relief. 8) !n the result, the writpetition is dismlssed. iere wl!l be no order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge e^