^<;'C.C'C,Ct ^ IH THE HIGH COURT OF HSDHYA. PRA0ESH &£ JABAI,P0R M P No. fo<&3 /1990 1. 1. Haniram Tadav . : son o£ Shri Kanj Babalram Yadav aged aboat 31 years Haya Tikra Para ' Kbairagarh (Bist-k. RaJ8aQdga®B;I'lP 2. Raradas Venna son of Shri Milandas Verma aged about 30 years C/s Sbrl. Ramdhyan Singh aear water worxs Mard Ho. 3 Khaj.ragarh (Distt. Rajnandgaon)HP 3 « Raradhyan Singh son of Shrl Mathtira Singh aged about 30 years Near waterworKS . Wara No. -> Post Kfaairagarh . (Distt. i<ajnandgaon)MP »,•••• .Betitioners .-1 Versus 1. Vice chancello.r Inaira Kala Sangit Vishwavlayalaya, Khalragarla (MP) 2» Registrar Indlra Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya ^Khalragarfa(MPA ............. ResEoadents PBTITIOK ONDS& ARTXCLES 228 aad 227 OE SHg CONSTITU'riQST OF IHDIA . Tbe petitioners beg to submlt as under ;- .1. That -fcbe petj-tioners are ci-fcizeras of .. India. • • . /^rF^ .^.^\. 7^./- of, HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .,ilS:l!i L.<!:'';;^i"f'^ iir^' SINGLE BENCH : HON'Bl-E MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. WRITPETITIQN N0.1063 OF 1990 Petitioners Respondents yersus Maniram Yadav and others Vice Chancellor, Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh and another i-l'B Present : IVIr. Satyendra Sahu, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.L.Bajaj, counsel for Uis respondents. Kil ORDER (Passed on 16" of November, 2006) Mll Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on ad hoc basis at Coilector's rate for a period of two months on payroent of Rs.450/- per month with effect from 9-10-1985 (Annexure W-1). Thereafter, the period of appointment was extended on the same terms and conditions. Petitioner No.1 was further appointed by order ctated 26-4-1986 (Annexure W-3) on the same terms and conditions and he continued on the basis ofseveral orders appointing him on ad hoc basis till 31-8-1989 (Annexures W-1 toW-18). 2. Petitioner No.2 was appointed temporarily on ttie post of Clerk for 89 days at Collector's rate on payment of Rs.540/- per month witFreffect from 1-11-1987 (Annexure X-1). Thereafter, petiUoner No.2 ^ continued on the basis of several orders appointlng him on ad hoc basis on the same terms and conditions till 31-8-1989 (Annexures X-1 to X- 9). 3. Petitioner No.3 was appointed temporarily at Golleetor's, rate on 11-8-1988 (Annexure Y-1) and by virtue of several orders passed fbr temporary appointment at Collector's rate for a limited period, he continued upto 31-8-1989 (Annexures Y-1 to Y-7). •)' 4. The services of the petitloners came to an end on compleUon of the period of appointment, which was based purety on temporary basis for 89 days, on 31-8-1989, by order dated 30-8-1989 (Annexure-B). 5. It is admitted case of the petitioners that the appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment or under any rutes framed under proviso to Artcte 309 of theConstitution of tndia inviting apptications from all the eligible candidates. in the present case, the pet'rtionere seek quashing of the impugned order dated 30-8-1989 (Annexure-B) and a writfdirection to the respondents to take back the petiConers in service with effect from 1 -9-1989 with all tack wages. 6. The.Supreme Court, while d^ling with the matters of daity wagers, ad hoc employees, probationers, temporary or confractual employees, not appointed following the procedure laid down under Artietes 14, 16 and 30Q of the ConstituUon of India, held ttiat such t, appointments dehors the eonstitutional scheme amounte to back door entry in the matter of public employment. 7. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Secwtary, State of Kamaitaka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and oVwrs^ has laid down clear enunciafon of taw which was folfowed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court. Some are Accounte OfRcer (A&l) A.P.SRTC and o iers vs. P. Chandra Sefchara Rao and offaera2, Surinder PrasadTiwari vs. U.P. Ra/ya Krishf t^oacfen Mancfr' Paristsd and off»era3, Nagar Mah^sattka (now Municipal Cwpn.) vs. State of U.P. and others4 and U.P. Stefe Roacf Tfanspoft Corporaffon vs. Man Singh6. B« msssssi- 8. In the case of Secretay, State of Kamataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and offws (Supra), the Supreme Court observed as under:- "45. While directmg that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that Uie person concerned has worked for sometime and in some cases for a considerabte length of time. It is 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 accepts the emptoyment witti open eyes. It may be tme that he is not in a position to bargain - not at arm's lengttt - stnce he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. Bul on that groundalone, it would not beappropriate to jetBson the constitutional scheroe of appoinhnent and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casualfy got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing ^ so, it witl be creating another mode of publte appointment whteh is not permissible." "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selecSon as recognised bythe relevant rules or procedure, he is awareof the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for bsing conflrmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made oriy by-following a proper procedure for setection and in cases concerned, in eonsultation witti the Public Service Commission." 9. For the reasons above-stated and as per the dicta taid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioners are not entitted to absorption/permanent sfatus or regularisation in the service. 10. costs. This petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to Sd/- Satish K.Ags Jadge 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2006) 7 SCC 488 3 (2006) 7 SCC 684 4 2006 AIRSCW 2497 5 2006AIRSCW51S9 Sopal ^