<J^ Isr-ST^) CD IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. V93>^ OF 2010 PETITIONERS //^ / /w 1.' B. RAVI KUMAR S/o Mohan Rao, aged about 39 years, Occupation: bata Entry Operator, Office of Forest bivision, Rajnandgaon, bistrict: Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2. KRISHNA UKEY S/o Lali Ukey, aged about 36 years, Occupation: Data Entry Operator, Office of Forest Division, Rajnandgaon, District: Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 3: NOMESH VERMA S/o Kishan Lal Verma, aged about 36 years, Occupation: bata- Entry Operator, Office of Forest Division, Khairagarh, District: Rajnandgaon (C.6.). 4. SANJAY KUMAR RAJPUT S/o Late Nar Singh Rajput, aged about 35 years, Occupation: bata Entry Operator, office of Forest bivision, Durg, bistrict: burg (C.G.). ^ 5. PURENbRA KUMAR DEWANGAN S/o Suddhuram bewangan, aged about 31 years, Occupation : bata Entry Operator, Office of Conservator of Forest, Durg, District: burg (C.G.) 6. ONKAR WAREY S/o Ravi Das Warey, aged about 34 years, Occupation: Data Entry Operator, Office of Forest bivision, Durg, bistrict: Durg (C.G.). 7. MOHb. SARFARAJ S/o Mohd. Muteem, aged about 25 years, Occupation: Data Entry Operator, Office of Forest Division, Durg, District: burg (C.G.). ® RESPONDENTS 8. SANJAY ANIYA S/o Kishore Aniya. aged about 38 years, Occupation- bata Entry Operator, Office of Forest Division South Kondagaon, District: Bastar (C.G.). ^' 9. TEJ SINGH POTAI S/o Suraj Lal Potai, aged about 32 years, Occupation: Data Entry Operator, Office of Forest Division North Kondagaoh, District: Bastar (C.6.). ^"" 10. ASHISH KUMAR SONI S/o Bhotanath Soni, aged about 31 years, Officeof Forest Division, bhamtari, District: bhamtari (C.6.) VERSUS 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Through - Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.6.) WRIT PETCTCON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTETUTCON OF INOIA 1 ^^< mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION fS) No. 1536 of 2010 PETITIONERS : B. Ravi Kumar & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DSTDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 08th day of April, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post ofData Entry Operator on contract basis and till today, they are working on the same posts on contract basis. Shri Sharan further submits that the similarly situated candidates have been regularised in service which is evident from order 22.12.2008 (Annexure P/5). 2. On the other hand, Shri Roy, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits petitioners were appointed on contract basis and their service condition is govemed by the provisoisn of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2004. The petitioner cannot claim regularisation in ser^ice as a matter of right. Shri Roy further submits that the petitioner's services can be extended for further period but that too., iftheir performance is found satisfactory. 3. I have heard leamed counsel appearmg for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. w The issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra as the Supreme Court., in a catena of decisions has made clear that the employees appointed on contract basis have no right to continue in service or reinstatement afiter period ofcontract is over. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis and not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. The appointment ofthe petitioners was purely on temporary basis for a fixed term of 12 months from the date oftheirjoining in services. It is trite that a temporary, ad hoc employee/daily wager or contract appointee cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and the same was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others1, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd?, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others3 and State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others4). With regard to regularisation of the employees working on temporary/contract basis, the Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), observed as under: 'Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule ofequality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the mle 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 overlooking (2006) 4 SCC 1 2007 (1) SCC 408 (2008) 10 SCC 1 (2009)98cc514 ^" i-l ..il?^l -^J' "^^»^ 9. of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant mles and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee." The above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court has been reiterated by this Court in Ashwani Kumar Verma & Others v. State of Chhattigarh & Another5 and Somendra Pratap Singh v. The State ofM.P. & others Against the order passed in Somendra Pratap Singh (supra), the petitioner therein preferred a writ appeal being W.A. (PR) No. 2077/2008, which was dismissed by the Division Bench ofthis Court by order dated 29.04.2008 affirming the order passed by the Single Bench. Thereagainst, the matter was taken upto the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.(C) No. 27190/2008 (Somendra Pratap Singh v. Stafe of Chhattisgarh & Others\ which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court affirming the view taken by this Court, vide its order dated 23.03.2009. This Court in Sanjay Patil v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another7' while dealing with similar issue obser^ed that "if the State Govemment has regularized some ofthe daily wagers, not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, this Court cannot issue a positive direction to legalise the illegal appointment on the ground that certain illegal appointments have been legalized/regularized by the employer. 5 WP (S) No. 1743 of2009 decided on 28-4-2009 6 W.P.(S) No. 1347 of 2005 decided on 26-2-2008 7 WP (S) No.5845 of 2009 decided on 9-10-2009 f ^ A;' •Sf^ t ? 'J <^.^ ,'. to 10. In this context, the Supreme Court, in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India8, obser^ed as under: "34. It is not a case where appointment was irregular. If an appointment is irregular, the same can be regularised. The Court may not take serious note of an irregularity within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. But if an appointment is illegal, it is non est in the eye of law, which renders the appointment to be a nullity. " 11. Further, in State of Punjab & another v. Surjit Singh & Others , the Supreme Court reaffirmed the above ratio in the following terms: "39. We would, however, before parting make an observation that the submission of the leamed counsel that only because some juniors have got the benefit, the same by itself cannot be a ground for extending the same benefit to the respondents herein. It is now well known that the equality clause contained in Article 14 should be invoked only where the parties are similarly situated and where orders passed in their favour are legal and not illegal. It has a positive concept." 12. In view of foregoing, for the reasons stated hereinabove and applying the well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe present case wherein the petitioners were appointed purely on contract basis for a period of 12 months, they are not entitled to any writ/relief. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 14. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge (2007) 4 SCC 54 ' (2009)98cc 514