HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA‘ H BILASPUR Wnt Petmon (S) No 185; of 2009 Petitioner Surendra K Prajapau Slo Shn Panna Nand Ram, aged about 35 yeaxs, R/o Jmlpaxa, Surajpur, Dlstt burguJa (C G) RE$pondants 1. r State of Chhattlsgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat, D.K.SL Bhawan, Rajpur (c.G.) i Versus 2. Collector, Ambika‘pur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3. Chief Executive Omcer, District Panchayat, Surguja (Ambikapur) (L } 4. Chef Executlve ‘O$cer, Janpad Panchayat SuraJpur, Dlstt Surguja (C G) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ' (SB: Hou’ble Shri Satish K. Agnjhotri J.) Shri Shmwan Agalwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. l 8n 2/ State. ORDER (Passed on this 8th Day of April, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties; the matter is heard many. Learned counsel appearing for the petiiioner submits that the peh‘tioner was working as Wireless Opelaior in Janpad Panchayat Surajpur horn» 9.4.1999 to 3.11.1999. Subsequently; he was removed from service. Thereafter, on 19.1.2001 the petitioner made an application (Annexure P/ 1) to the Collector; Ambikapur for providing appointment on the post of Incharge Wireless Operator. The petitioner also submitted application dt. 20.1.2004 (Annexure P/3) and 3.4.2002 (Annexure P/5) to the Chief Executive Omcer, Janpad Panchayat Soorajpur for providing appointment on any of the posts. Learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner submits that the matter of the petitioner for appointment was processed, which is 5/2; apparent &om tha memo dt. 1.3 2008 (Annexure P/4), as well as the note—sheet (Annexure P/6), ven then the petitioner has not been given appointment on any of the posts. I‘ have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on daily wages ,Vfor a period of I about seven months from 9.4.1999 to 3.11‘1999. hereafter, his services came to'an end. The appointment ofthe - petitioner was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment as there was no invitation to the similarly situated persons for participation in the selection process. Reappointment, on the basis of the earlier appointment on daily wages for the period from 9.4.1999 to 3.11.1999, cannot be directed. Once the appointment itself is not a legal appointment the employee has no right to continue or reinstatement or reappointment on the post. In the present case even 1f the Government has initiated consideration on the application of the petitioner, fthe Government cannot be directed to make an appointment which is not in accordance with law, on the basis of the earlier appointment Which itself was de hors the constitutional scheme “of employment. Hon’ble (Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and othersl held that if it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual hasis, the same would come to aniend I I x - 1 2006(4) SCCI ~ ‘\\ T