c^- v^ BENCIi. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.IS.t. N0. /2011 PETITIONER: ,'0^••S<€- ^^; ^^' •'v.'<'"n. ,\- ~ \^<i^>--' ^^.>^c--" ^% .<"l'\v f "^ ^"'•" '^- rl/..-' ^ RESPONDENTS: Anant Singh, son of Shri Madhav Singh, aged about 27 years, R/o. Village Begaridand, Post Odgi, Tahsil Odgi, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Departaiient of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur [C.G.] ^" 2. Collector, District Surguja [C.G.] 3.' Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Surguja (C.G.), 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Odgi, District Surguja "(C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OZINDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title above. 2. PARTICULARS OF_THE RESPONDENTS As mentioned in the cause title above 3., PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH PETITION IS MADE. -e;^~ ^. ,-^A B '•'SSf' HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. 720of20Il PETITIONER : Anant Sin^i. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON XJNDER AR11CLE 226 QF IHE CONSTmjIIQN OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Aemhotri, J. Present: Shri J.P.ShuUa, Advoeate for the petttioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for tfie State/respondent No. 1&2. OKDERfORALy (Passed on 07a day of February, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direetica to the respoirient authorities to reiastate the petitioner on the post of Enn>loyment Assistant, wilfa back-wages. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the fwtiti<mer submits that uutially, tfae petifioner was appointed on the pmt ofEmploynMirt Assistant by order dated 28.12.2006.1'he petitionerjoined his serviee in the ofiice of Chief Executive QfBcer, Janpad Panchayat Odgi on 30.12.2006. Tbereafter, by order dated 18.03.2(»8(Am»xureP/3), the term of contraet appointment was lurther extaided for a period ofone year, till 31.12.2008. Subsequently, his services has been terminated vide order dated 28.6.2010 (Annexure P/5). Being ag^ieved, the petitiouer made a representotion to the respondent authorities but nothing has happened till date. Shri Shufcla further submits that Ifae action ofthe respondeiit authorities by temimating the service oftiie petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. The petitiMier was not afforded any opportunity ofhe»ingbefore passing ofthe terminatiQn order. 3. According to leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2, the tenn of contract appoutfment ofthe petitioner has come to an end on 31.12.2008. Thereafter, the services oflhe petitioner was never extended. r,,-''-"^ ^ I tsw^ 1 ^ 4. Qn perusal ofthe orda- dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure P/l), it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on coiitract basis for a period ofone year. llie petitioner, afterjoining his dutv on 30.12.2006 and thereafter. his services were eidended by order dated 18.03.2008, till 31.12.2008 and has coiitinued in service for more than 3% years, till passing of the impugped tennination order i.e. 28.06.2010. No record has been produeed to indicate that Ihe term of his appoinhnent was ever extended after 31.12.2008. 5. As per clause 7 of the appointment order dated 28.12.2006 (Amiexure P/l), it is evident that the confidential report would be maintained and according to performance ofthe candidste, he shall be considered for appomtment on contTact basis fw tfae iiext year. In the impugned temrination order dated 28.6.2010 (Annexure P/5), it is apparent that the petitioner's service has been terminated on account ofhis absence and negligence towards his duties. 6. It is a trite law that a contract appointee caaiot claim regularization, contmuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment which was temporary for a fixed period and also not in accordance with law and the same was de hors Ihe constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others^, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , Official L'quidator v. Dcyemand cmd others and State of Punjab and Others v. Surfit Singh cmd Others4). 7. Applying the well settled prineiples of law to the facts ofdie ease on hand, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 8. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agmhotri Judge 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2007) 1 SCC 408 3 (2008)108cci 4 (2009) 9 SGC 514 |(]S|^^J||fi(gin^t((^dU*Uil[f|pltMlllMIl,||rti]^^ T^'si -^s&m