M^\^ ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.ISINO. ^3'5g> /2011 (S.B.l PETITIONER RESPONDENTS <A^-^>^- _,..^--^^-^A- ^-^^^~ Sukhi Ram Markam S/o Sri Dhan Singh, aged about 45 years R/o Village - Raha , P. O. - Lafa , P.S. / Tahasil - Pali Distt. KorbafC.G.) VERSUS / : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- The Secretary, Departrrient of forest and Environlnent D.K.S. Bhawan, (Mantralaya) Raipur, Distt. Raipur (G.G.) 2. Conservator Of Forest, Ware House Road, BUaspur Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) ^-^3 Divisional Forest Officer, Katghora, Distt Korba (C.G.) ^ -4 The Ranger of Forest, Range Office- Ghaitama /Pali, Divisional of Forest- Katghora, DisttKorba (C.G.) 5 Mohit Ram Yadav , Forest Guard, at - PaU Fdresl Range / Divisional Forest Officer, Katghora, Distt KorbafC.G.) 6 Jagjivan Gond , Forest Guard, at - PaliForestRange/ Divisional Forest Officer, Katghora, Distt Korba (C.G.) 6 WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETIT! RESPQNDENTS HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR VVRIT PETiTlON (SVNO. 2398 QF 2011 , Sukhi Ram Markam f Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others <:^ t (Writ PetitiQn under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Singls Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri K.N.Nande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORDER fORAL) (Passed orrthis 05th day of May, 2011) 1. By this petition;the petitloner claiming to be a daily-wager appointedin the year, 1986, seeks regularization on the basis of a circuiar datsd 5.3.2008. Though the petitioner was appointed on daiiy-wages basis but since he has worked for more than 25 years, the petitioner should have been considered for regularization in the light pf the circuiar dated 5.3.2008. 2. Shri Thakur, learned ^Dy. A.G. appearing for fhe State respondents No.1 to 4submits that theeffect of the circular dated ,5.3.2008 is not to regularize iilegal appointments but irregular appointment, which Ras been explained and directed by the Supreme Court in State ofKarnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others . 3. Leamed counsel further submits that on the. basis of circuiar dated 5.3.2008, the State Government have regularize some of the employees, who have been junior to the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, the iaw in this issue asto whether an appointments, which has been made, not in accordance with law and de hors t'ne constitutional scheme of employment, can be regularize by executive instructions. In para 53 of the judgment in Umadevi (supra), It has been ciearly stated.that the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as an one-time measure, the services of 4SCC1 & Aslhbk 2 . : . , : ' . ' such irregularlv appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctsoned posts. tn that event, oniy the irregularly appointed persons, who have worked against the sanetioned posts,may be considered Tor regularization, not the lllegaily appointsd employees. 5. Th'ere is no dispute in this case that the appointment of the petitionerwas not in accordance with iaw. Thus, it was illegal appointment not irregular appointment, which couTd have been considered subsequentiy on the strength by the drcular dated 5.3.2008 forregularization. 6. The iilegai appointment cannot be validated by subsequent action, which runs counter to what have been held in Umadevi (supra). Thus, the eontention of the petitioner that he has spent 25 years on the post fails. In respect of the contention that other persons who are' similarly situated are juniors to the petitioner have been regularized, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of equailty as enshrined in Article 14 of the ConstitutionDf India, as it js wel! settled that the equality is a positive concept and cannot be granted in ease of illegal appointment. 7. This Coyrt in Sanjay Patil y. State of ChhatGsgarh & Anothe^, whiie dealing with similar issue observed that "if the State Govemment has regularized some of the daily wagers, not appointed in accordance with fhe constitutional scheme of employment, this Court cannot issue a posSve direction to legsiise the iilegal appointment on the ground that certain illegal apppintmentshaye beenSegalized/regularized by the employer. 8. The issue was also considered by this Court \n Darbar Singh Porte &Anothery. Stateof ChhatSsgartf & Anothei3. 9. In view of foregoing, the writ petition, being deyoid ofmerit, is iiabie to be and is herebv dismissed. 3© Sd/- K. Agnihotri Judge 2 VVP (S) No.5845 of 2009 decidedon 9-10-2009 3201().(3)CGLJ418 • , -