H!GH COURTOF GHHATTfSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S)No. 3342 of 2008 Petitioner Versus espondents 1. 4. Bhagwat Prasad Nirmalkar, S/o Shri Jagannath Nirmalkar, Aged about 44 years, R/o Opposite Dr. Sanjay ^rawat, Mungeli, Post- Mung&!i, Dislrict- Biiaspur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department o* Health ancf Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya,Raipur (CG) Director, Directorateof Health and Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur(CG) hl Chief Msdicaland Healtt Officer, District- Bilaspur(CG) Block Medical OfRcer, Block Mungeli, District- Bitaspur (CG) WRIT PET!TIONUNDERARTICLES226/2270FTHE COSTITUTIQN OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shri Ratnesh Kumar. Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri AJay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondente. ORM.ORDER (Passed on this 1st day of July, 2C08) -«• 1. The peUtioner Bhagwat Prasad Nirmalkar v/as appointed on daily wages vide order dated 18.11.1985 (Annexure P/2) with the condition that his appointment is temporary and on account of selection of any person by the selection committee, the appointmsnt of the petitioner would stand cancetled. Thepetitioner, thereafter, continued fil! th6 impigned order dated 17.6.2(M8 (Annexure P/1) was passed. ,"•-. •<t. ./-^: 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submite that the services of the petitioner were regularized vids order dated 26,9.2005 (Annew^re P/5). The petitioner being a regular employee, the respoRdents shoulGi have followed the principtes of natura! justice by giving a notice to show cause before passing ths impugned order oftermination. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is evident from ths memo dated 31.5.2008 ttat the petitioner was abstaining fromhtsdutiessince 1.11.1986. On 31.12.1994the notice was issuedto the petitionsr to join his services, othemfise his servjces wouid be terminated. It appsara that the DirectQr, Health Senrices, Chhaffisgarh has directed for inquiry into the matter asto how the petitioner was afforded an opportunKy jn the year 2000 to continue inservice after having remained absent for a long period of 14 years. 4. I have hsard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusedthe pisadihgs anddocuments SRpendedthereto. 5. It is evident that the appointment of the petitjoner was not in accordance with the eonstitutional scheme of appointment as no public noticewas given andthe similarlysituated personswere notafforded an opporhinityto compete v/ith the peStioner for appointment on the post. Evenotherwise, the appointment of thepetitioner tieing adhoc,was for the period til! properiy selected person is appointed on the post. The matter regarding iilegally allowing the petitioner to continue in service, when he reniained absent for about 14yeare, and thersafter his regularizatipn in the year 2005, is pendingenqujry, as is evidentfrom the memo dated 31.5,2008 (Annexurs P/2). 6. Bs that as it may, the appointment of the petiUoner was on daity wages the petitioner has not acquired any right to the post. The appointment of the 4!etitioner cannot be held as tegat and in accordance with the provisions of Artictes 14,16 and 309 ofthe Constitution of india. This issue is no longer res integra that the appoinftnent made de hors the consGtutional scheme of the employment. is invalid and unconstitutional. The employee so appointed has no rightto continuation. 7. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge T^akur •^