c9 ew/b IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.p.(S) No. {6&9 /2011 (3.3.) PETITIONERS : / 1. Chandra Kumar Bhoi, S/o Shri Usatram Bhoi, aged about 39 years, R/o Village~ Akashkhar, Post— Paikin. / 2 Lalit Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Patel, aged about 36 years, Post~Ka1endra, R/o Village«D arripaJi. . Rajesh Kumar Bariha, S / o Shr Chatrubhuj Barhia, aged about 39 ,. Sampat Lal athar, S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Kathar, age about 39 years, R/o Vilge~ Makarmuta, Post‘ Singhoda. 6. Uttar Kumar Pradhan, S / o Shri Goverdhan Pradhan, aged about 39 years, R/o Village— Joba, Post~Pandripani, All petitiners R/o Block o . 3 i 15 K d la years, R/o Village Manpali, PostdPutka. Ashok Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Lal Bihari Sahu, aged about 37 years, R/o Village — Jamdalkha, Post Singhoda. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ 8L Tahsil Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /:'1. State of Chhattisgarh Through ~ Secretary Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bahwan, é Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) x 2. The Collector cum Chaiirman, Education Guarantee Scheme F ,o a, . coordination t committee, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) /3. Chief Executive Officer/Vice Chairman, Zi1a~ Panchayat Education Guarantee scheme coordination committee, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) /4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, Block and Tahsil—Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) &GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S! NO. 1077 OF 2011 PETITIONERS Chandra Kumar Bhoi & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon‘ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri K.N. Nande, Advocate forthe petitioners. Shri Y.S‘ Thakur, Dy. Adv. General forthe State. RESPONDENT ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 24' day of February, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties, By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order dated 12-1-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, by which the representation submitted by the petitioners has been rejected. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners as Shiksha Karmi Grade — Ill. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that initially the petitioners were appointed on the post of Guruji for the period of one academic session. Thereafter, their services were discontinued on account of completion of the one academic sessions. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioners preferred a petition before this Court being‘WP. (S) No.5409 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Courtby order dated 26-9-2008 with liberty to the petitioners to make representation for redressal of their grievances and for considering their candidature fer appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade — Ill. Subsequently, the petitioners made a representation, Which was decided by the Additional Collector, Mahasamund, by order dated 30-10-2010 with a direction to grant appointment to the petitioners on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade — ill, in accordance with law. ln spite of the aforesaid directions, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, refused to grant appointment to the petitioners on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade ~ lll on the x ground that the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade Ill can be filled only after going the duly constituted selection process and in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2007 (for short “the Rules, 2007”). Thus, this petition. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Guruj on honorarium basis for the period of one academic session. The impugned order has been passed, in accordance with law. The respondent authorities have not committed any illegality or irregularity and have not at all violated the directions issued by this Court. Even othen/vise, there is no provision in the Rules, 2007 wherein a Guruji / a contract teacher can be appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade — lll directly on an application irrespective of his eligibility and by—passing the recruitment process. It is well settled that when a project or a scheme or an office itself is abolished, relief by way of reinstatement is not granted. The petitioners have no right to continue or to be appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade — lll. Even othenlvise, the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Guruji was purely on temporary and honorarium basis. The contention of Shri Nande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that some of the candidates in Basna Janpad Panchayat have been appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi. It is _ trite laws that equality cannot be claimed negatively, if certain illegal appointments have been made, the same benem cannot be granted to other persons. 8. This Court in Sanjay Patil v. State of Chhatttsgarh & Another1, white dealing with similar issue observed that "if the State Government has regularized some of the daily wagers, not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, this Court cannot issue a positive direction to Iegalise the illegal appointment on the ground that certain illegal appointments have been legalized/regularized by the employer. “ 9. The identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in Ku. Bhagwan Sahu & others v. The State of Chhattisgarh & othersz, wherein this Court held as under: "9. . .. the petitioners were removed on closure of the schools run under the EGS (Education Guarantee Scheme), the petitioners have no n'ght to continue or to.be re-appointed as Shiksha Karmis. Even omen/vise, the appointment of the petitioners was purely on temporary and honorarium basis." 10. ln view of foregoing, it cannot be held that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, committed any illegality, infirmity or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri 1 WP (S) No.5845 of 2009 decided on 9—1 0-2009 2 WP No.2160 of 2001 decided on 19-3-2009