j^^! c &-zT7 BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.9^ /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS .,^ /^/ ^%0/ ^1 ;.?• ^- «.' / .Mariyam Ali, D/o P.V.N. Mohiuddin, aged about 43 years, R/o Women Hi^tel, Kasturba Mahila Mandal, \ Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS ^' 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Bharat Scout and Guide, Chhattisgarh, Through: The State Secretary Sapre School Premises, Bhudhapara, Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Ex-officio District Commissioner Scout/Guide, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^ 4. President, Bharat Scout/Guide National Headquarter, 16, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Laxmi Mazumdar Bhawan Instraprastha Estate, NewDelhi-110002 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. •\v/ c^°w €^;" ^&jjjider" - "<. ii..irN*uisi)|iriiwiiiyiNNaBUinB» AF< HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR Wnt Petition fS) No. 974 of 2010 Petitioner Maryaja Ali Versus Respondents State of Chhatttegarh & others WRFT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB; Hon'bte SluiSatish K. A^uhotri J.) Shri Anoop Majiiiadar, Advocate for tlie petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Paael Lawyer for the respondents/State. ORDBRtOraII (Passed on fhis 8th day ofMarch, 2010) Heard. The petitioner, by this pefition, seeks to chaBenge the order dated 29.11.2009, passed by the respondent N6.2, whereby the services ofthe petitioner as Distdct Coordination Cominissioner (Gujde), Rajnandgaon, has been termiaated. By order dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure P/2) fhe petitioner -was appoiated on tlie post of Diistrict Coordination Cominissioner (Giude) for District Rajnandgaon on honorarium. On 22.2.2008 an advertisement (Annexure P/3) was issued iavitmg applications fi?oin the eligible caadidates for appointment ou fhe regular posts of Distdct Coordination Cominissioner through direct recruitment, pursuant to which fhe petitioncr also applied for the post and accordmgfy' by tetter dated 8.10.2008 (Annexure P/4) she was catled for interview on 14.10.2008. Acconiing to the petitioner she was appoiated as ad hoc Dtetdct Coordination Commissioner, Rajnandgaon but no formal appoiatment order was issued. By the impugned order dated 29.11.2009 wifhout holdiag an- enquity the services of the petitioner has been termiaated on the ground that a cotaplauit yas received against fhe pctitioner about indiscipline of the petitioner at Stete headquarter. Learued coimsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits fhat atthough fhe appoiatment of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis but fhe impugaed onler is a stiginatic ordcr, whicU was p^sed wifhout conductmg an cnquiry and wifhout aflFoiding aa (^ :iiNll)l>nnr.W*lrt*ii]U ^Ji if !i %s Sf^. ^^, lii6® :52^' 5. 6. 7. @ opportunity of hearing to fhe petitioner, Diiring the semce period fhe petitioner receiffed various appreciations and certificates for her distmguished performance of duties. Thus, the termination of the petitioner is bad iu law. In support ofhis submission leamed couusel rely on a decisiou of Supreine Court in Jaswantstngh Pratapsingh Jadeja Vs. Re^kot Munlcipal Corporatlon aad aaother1 wherein it is held fhat ''Froin fhe discussions inade heieiabefore, it is evident fhat temunation of semces of fhe appeUant purporting to dischai^e him siinpUcitor cannot be accepted, being stiginatic in nature." Learaed counsel further rely on a decision of Suprcnie Court iu Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar2, whereiu the appeUant Saagathan was aa autonomous body. The respondent was appoiuted as a Youfh Coordinator by the appeUant and was placed on probation with fhe stipulation that during the probation period fhe Sangathan could termiaate his semces'without notice aad without assigaiag aay reasons. On the atlegation of wifhdrawal of soine ainount finm the govenrment fiiad and depositing ia his personal bank account au enquiry was conducted behind hjs back and on the basis of the reszilt thereof, his probation was terminated. It is held that "The order dated 24-5-1995 was, iadisputably based on the findings tfaat aa enquuy had been niade behiad the back ofthe respondent. Had the result of fhe preluniaary enquuy been taken iato consideration oiily for the purpose of judging the suitabiUly of the respondent to continue ia service, fhe same could not have been said to be a fouudation for termiaating the probation." Leamed coiinsel subinits that admittedty, in the case on hand no enquuy was conducted aud no opportunily was afforded to the petitioner to put forth her explanation ete. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties aad perused the pleadiugs aad docuinents appended thereto. In fhe case on band, iudisputably, according to fhepetitioner no appointm.eut order was passed after iaterview on « (2007) 10 SCC 71 2 (2008) 2 SCC 479 ^ "^\ t ^gy%. -^ '-:w ^ .? 8. 9. 10. 14.10.2008, however, the impugned order dated 29.11.2009 has been passed. It is not a case where fhe petitioner was appoiated io. accordaaee with the constitutioaal scheme of eniployment, as pursuaat to fhe interview, appoiutment was not inade. The petitioner was iaitialty appomted on 15.9.2006 on teinporary basis subject to condition that the appoiatnient was purely teinporary and the same could be terminated any tiine wifhout prior notice. The appoiatment of the petitioner was also not on any payinent, but on honorariiun basis. Thus, the question of holding aa enquity before disengaging the services ofthe petitioner does not arise. The petitioner has not acquired auy right on the basis of the order dated 15.9.2006, which was teniporary and on honorarium basis. Lscvf in this regard is weU setded fhat a person who has no r^ht to the post has no light to contiauation, reiastatenient or regiilarization in service.(See Secretary, State of Karxiatalta and others Vs. Umadevl (3) and othefs3, OfHcial Uquidator Vs. Dayanaad and others4 ). Thus the petitioner is not entitled to any reUcf, as clauned ia ttus petition. Por the reasons afore-stated, the petitioner has failed to establish any right to the post aad, as such, no relief on fhe ground that disengagement was stigmatic, caa be graated. In the result, fhe writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There wfll be no order asto costs. _^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2006 (4) SCC 1 2008 (10) SCC 1