(U? HIGH COIJRT OF CHHATTISGARiI AT BILASPITR Vt'rit Fefition No. 1992 of2006 Nityanand Pradhan S/o Nirakar aged about 42 years R/o village Savitripur, District Mahasamund (CG). k ^. Y-^f RESPQNffiNTS : 1. The State of Clihattisgarh Tlirough the Secretary, Department ofForest, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2, Tlie Head ChiefConservator ofForest, Raipur (CG). 3. The ChiefConservator ofForest, Raipur (CG). 4. Divisiona! Forest Qfficer, Distriet Mahasainund (CG). 5. The Forest Range Ofucer, Basna, District Mahasamund (WPOT PETITION IJNDE& ARTtCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'Ue Mr. Sattsh K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate foi- Ihe petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondeiits. ORALORDER (Passed on 27 ofFebiiiary, 2008) 1. The petitioaer was appoiated as Security Guard ia Forest Department in the year 1987 on da'lywages basis. The sendces of the petitioner was disengaged on several tuTies without their being cotitmuation in service on da'lyvages basis. The Sen/ices of the petitioner was again engaged osi 09.09.2000, in the sanie capacity, on temporary basis. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the ease ofthe petitioner for regularization m the light ofthe circiilar dated 09.01.1990 issued bv the M.P. Govi. He further subnuts that under the said circular the then State of M.P. has regularized all the l^bours working on daily^/ag€!sor ad hoc basis on 3 1.12.199§. 3. Thc De'titioneT has nrefei*red tliis Dptition- seekins coniDlintice ofthe abovs stated circular. All the decisions directing regiilarizatio" ofthe eniployees appointed, dehore the constitution scheme of employnient and not in accordance with law, inipliediy stand ovemiled, in view ofthe decision of the Constitution Beadi of Supreme Court of India in the matter of_ je' '•<\ Secretary, State ofKamataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and others (2006 (4) SCC 1}. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down clear enuneiation of law which was followed later on in various (iecisipns by the Supreme Court. 4. Iiittie case ofSecretary, State ofKaniataka and Othere Vs. Uma Devi aiid othere (Supra) the Supreme Court observed as under: "Tiius it is clear that adherence to the niie of equality in pub!ic employment is a basic feature ofour constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitirtion, a court would certaiiily be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation ofArticle 14 or in orderiiig the overiooking of tiie need to coinply with the requu-ements ofArticle 14 read with Article 16 offhe Constitiition. Therefore, consisteiit with the scheme for public employinent, this Court while laying down fhe law, has necessarily to hold that uiiless the appointment is in terms ofthe relevant mles and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee........." 5. Iii tlie light ofthe above, tiie petitioner camiot claiin any regularization or /" reinstatemeat in service on tlie basis of his appointnieat which was temporary and not in accordance with law. 6. Accorduigly, Ihe y.'nt petition is disinissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatisbK,A^ottl Judge