HIGH CX)IJRT OF dfflATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR Writ Petifion No. 1286 of2000 PETITIOPitERS : 1. Amitabh S/o Shri Surendra Sharma, aged 32 years. 2. Shailendra Kumar Bais, S/o Shri M.S. Bais, aged 30 years. 3. Smt. Diirga Sharma, W/o A-K. Sharma, aged 30 years. 4. Shri Sunil Bijwe, S/o Shri D.N. Bijwe, aged years. 5. Shri Midcta N and Naik, S/o Shri Ramadha Nayak, aged 35 years. 6. Shri Ram Ratan Sahu, S/o Late Latelu Ram Sahu aged 35 years. 7. Shri Vashisth Muni Gupta, S/o Late Shri Rambhjan Gupta, aged 38 yeans. 8. Shri Kalipad Das, S/o Shri Fakeerchand Das, aged 34 years. 9. Shri Surendra Yadav, S/o Shri Pardeshi Ram Yadav, aged about 27 years. 10. Shri B.R. Ramaiya, S/o Shri V.N. Rao, aged 38 yeara. 11. Shri Naresh Kumar Sahu, S/o Tirath Ram Sahu, aged 27 years. 12. Shri Nandu Sahu, S/'o Shri Ghasiram Sahu, aged 33 years. 13.8hri Prafi.il Kantupadhya, S/o Slffi Ram Kumar Upadhya, aged 37years. 14.8hri J. Devaiya, S/o Shri G.Kesaia, aged31 years. 15.Shri Jainendra Yadav, S/o Shri Ghasi Ram Yadav (Late) aged 27 years. 16.Shri Kant Chandrakar, S/o Shri R.D. Chandrakar, aged 39 years. l7.Shri Bhagwairt Yadav S/o shri Banshi Lal Yadav, aged 29 years. 18-Shri Jiwesh Choubey, S/o Shri Prabhakar Choubey, aged 37 years. 19. Shri Ram Krishna Yadu, S/o Shri Pardeshi Ram Yadav aged 40 years. 20.8mt Vijay Laxmi Shrivastava, W/o Anm Kumar Shrivastava, a^d 29 years. 21. Shri Siu-esh Yadav S/o Shri Ghasirain Yadav, aged 28 years. 22. Shri Nandkishore S/'o Shri Asmudeq? Koshta, aged 30 years. 23.Shri Premlal Sahu,S/o late Shri Jeevrakhan Sahu, aged 32 years. 24. Shri Sugreev Sinha, Shri Hari Siaha, aged 29 years. 25. Sliri Kalivela Goriya, S/o Shri K. Goriya, aged 24 years. 26. Shri Narayan Vishwas, S/o Late Shri Nikhil Vishwas, Aged 33 years. 27. Shri Lalsahay, S/o Shri Rukhmal Sona, aged 27 years. 28.8hri Tirath Ram Sinha, S/o Shri Bhukhanlal Sinha, aged 24 years. 29.Pokhaii Lal Sinha, S/o Shri Vishwas Sinha, aged 35 years. 30. Shri M.A. Khijarhayad, S/o M.A. Khalid, aged 35 years. 31. Sliri Prahlad Yadu, S/o Shri Kheduram Yadu, aged 32 years. 32.8mt. Bhanuprabha Shrivastava, W./o Rajeev Shrivastava, aged 35 years. 33. Smt. Ram Pyari Yailav, W./o Shri J.N. Yadav, aged 40 years. 34. Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Shatruhan Yadav, aged 36 years. 35.Tej Ram Sinha, S/o Shri Narad Ram, aged 28 years. 36. Shri Manish Sutwande, Shri V.L. Sutwande, aged 30 years. 37.ShriM.Babu,S/oShriNatsimha,aged30years. —; i^r ,-!"aE5tl%>. ^y^ ^ ;^BSS^»^i. ^1 RESPONDENTS 38. Shri K. Baliya, S/o K. Chaniya, aged 22 years. 39. Shri Shivkumar Yadav, Late Shri Basu Yadav, aged 23 years. 40. Shri Pyarelal Sahu, late Shri Baliram Sahu, aged 30 years. 41.8hri Ram nath Devangan, S/o Shri Mohanlal Devangan, aged 31 yeare. 42. Salik Ram Patel, S/o Shri Somnath Patel, aged 35 years. 43. Ku. Kusumlata Verma, D/o M.P. Verma, aged 34 years. 44. Smt. S. Battala Nair, W/o R. Govindan Nair, aged 35 years, 45.Nandkiimar Sahu, S/o Shri Jehiram Sahu, aged 32 years. 46.8mt. Vejanti Bai Yadav, W/o Shri Rajendra Yadav, aged 38 years. 47.8hri H.R. Chandrakar, S/o S.S. Chandrakar, aged 28 years. 48.8hri T.P. Sahu, S/o Shri Kejuram Sahu, aged 31 years. 49. Shalendra Bagh, S/o Shri S.L. Bagh, aged 30 years. I.Brij Mohan Sahu, S/o Shri Phool Singh Sahu, aged 23 years. 51. Shri Abdul Wakil, S/o Shri Abdul Jaleem, aged 34 yearg. 52. Shri Subhash Shanna, S/o C.L. Dubey, aged 35 years. 53.8hri Dev Pratim Goswami, S/o Shri S.R. Goswanu, aged 35 years. 54. Shri Batima Yadav, S/o Shri Bhrigat Yadav, aged 26 years. 55. Shri Phagnoo 8/0 Shri Kheteeram, aged 25 years. 56. Shri Ganesh, Aged 28 yeare. 57. Shri Santosh Bagh, S/o Shrinath Bagh, aged 29 years. 58.Rajkumar Sinha, S/o Sbn S.N. Sinha, aged 27 years. 59. Shri Gyandas, S/o Shri Vishambar, aged 24 years. 60. Shri Kaniyalal, s/o Shri Jettiiram aged 36 years. 61.Narvatam, S/o Shri Bihari, aged about 34 years. 62. Shri Gajanand S/o Shri Mohanu, aged 30 years. 63. Shri S.Papya, S/o Shri S. Rasoya, aged 32 years. 64. Shri O. Rajeev, s/o Shri Bal Goriya, aged 32 years. 65. Shri Bir Singh, S/o Shri Bhuvan, aged 30 years. 66. Shri Sonmath Yadav, S/o Shri Chetraiii, aged 35 years. 67.Mojeshwani S/'o Y.K. Wani, age 24 years. 68. Brandavan Sahu, S/o Shri Neelambar, aged 28 yeais. 69.8hri Vishnu Sahu, S/o Manglu Sahu, aged 30 years. 70. Shsi Gopal Sahu, S/o Shri Phagwaram Sahu, aged 26 years. Tl.Gowardfaan Sahu, S/o Shri Samaru, aged 32 years. 72.Rameshwar dhimar, s/o Shri Suku Dhimar, aged 25 years. 73.Uday Ram ,S/o Shri Dhusuram, aged 30 years. 74.Me^ai Yadav, S/o DhanaYadav, aged 33 years. All resident of Rnshais. Nagar Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya campus, Raipur (MP). VERSUS l.State of Madhya Pradesh, through it Secretary Agricultiire Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP). 2.1ndira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, through Registrar Krisak Nagar, Raipur (MP). 3. Director, Research Services, Directed REssearch Sen'ices, Indira Gaadhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Krishak Nagar, Raipur (MP). 4. Diretrtor, Extension of Services, Directed Exteasion of Services, fadira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Krishak Nagar, Raipur (MP). --_ ;,,ii>!-E.; !fS»S 11 s- ^ 5. Dean, Dairy Technology College, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Krishak Na^r, Raipur (MP). 6. Dean, Stiident Wetfare Departtnent, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Krishak Nagar, Raipur (MP). 7. Dean, Agricultiire College, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Krishak Nagar, Raipur (MP). 8. Incharge Library, Nehru Pustkalaya, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Krishak Nagar, Raipur (MP). 9. Superintendent, Physics Plant (Bhotik Sayantra), Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Krishak Nagar, Raipur (MP). (WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'bleMr.SatishK.Afiiuhotri,J.) Preseiit : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for fhe State. Shri Anupam Diibey, Advocate, on behalf of Shri Ramakaat Mishra, Advoeate for the respondent No. 2 to 9. ORAl,ORDER (Passed on G4U1 ofMai'di, 2008) 1. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondeiits. 2. On penisal of the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it appears that, the petitioners were appointed on different posts on daily wages basis. The petitioners have not filed copies of appointmeiit orders but copies of other relevant docimients have been filed, wherein it is indicated that the petitioners were working as daily wagers. 3. The State Govemment, by order dated 31.12.99 held that any appointment made on daily wages after 01.01.89 will be held as illegal andthe ofiBcers appointirig daily wagers be held responsible and the payment made thereon may be recovered from the ofScers concemed. 4. The petitioners seek qiiashing ofthe order dated 27.01.2000 (A-iinexiire P/l) and further a direction to the respondents to i-egiilarize all the daily wages workers appoiirted since 1988. As per circular dated 25.09.98 wherein it wa.s provided tliat all the employees appointed on daily wages basis prior to 31.12.88 shallbeconsideredforregularization. ^•LiTt^- ^. •ci»^»^ •y I£asS£5? 4 5. Be that as it may, now with the passage oftime, law has changed. All Ifae decisions directuig regiilarization of tfae employees appointed, dehors the constitution scheme of employment and not in accordance with law, impliedly stand overruled, in wew ofthe deeision offhe Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in tfae matter of Secretary, State of Kamataka aiid O&ers Vs. Uma Devi aad others . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down clear enunciation of law which was followed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court. Some are Accounts OfBcer (A&I) A.P.SRTC and others Vs. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao and otfaers , Sunder Prasad Tiwari Vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Panshad and others , Nagar Mahapalika (novv Municipal Corp.) Vs. State ofU.P. and others and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Man Singh . 6. In the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (supra), tfae Supreme Court obsen'ed as under: "45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual be regularized or made permaneirt, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concAned has worked for soine tiine and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagemeirt either temporary or casual in nafaire, is not aware ofthe nature ofhis employment He accepts the employinent with open eyes. It may be tnie that he is not in a position to bargain- not at ann's length-siiice he might have been searehing for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appoitrtment and to take tiie view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be contmued pemianently. By going so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissiMe. "47. When a persoa enters a temporary employment or get engagemeiit as a contractual or casual worker and fhe engagement is not based on a proper selectioH as recognized by the relevant niles or procedure, he is aware ofthe coasequeiwes ofthe appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being coiifirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concemed, in consultation withthe Public Service Commission." 7. In the li^rt ofthe above, the petitioners camiot claim any regiilarization or reii-Btatemeiit in services on the basis of their appointnients which were temporary and not in accordance with !aw. 8. Accordingly, fhe writ petition is diamssed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agiiiisotri Judge Sahu