$7 5 0mo W 3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3421 of2006 Vaikalpik Evam 'Navachari Anudeshak Evam Anudeshika Kalyan Sang, through its President Rajesh Mishra, Aged about 36 years, S/o K.P. Mishra R/o At Post Kurda Champa, DistL Janjgir Champa. VERSUS : l. Union of India, through Secretaxy, Ministry of Human Resources and Development, New Delhi 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secrétary, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Mantralay DKS Bhawan, Raipur. . ~ Mission Sanchalak, Rajya Pariyojna Karyalay, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raipur (CG). 4. Collector Evam Jila Mission Sanchalak, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Janjgir. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TEE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) LSB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rajneesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate, appeaxs on behalf of Shri Shailendra Dubey, Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent No. 1. 1. The petitioner members are Instructors, appointed by the ‘Block Education Officer, Janjgir (Nawagarh) (Annexure P13), o temporary basis, to persuade parents and children of the society for taking admission in Schools, and attending the Schools/Instimtions regularly. The services of the petitioner members were dis—continued by order dated 14.06.2006 (Annexure P/9) after a period of about seven months on the ground stated therein that on account of non- / availability of budget, altemate education centers are to be closed. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 2 &, 4.’ > Shri A.S. Kachhwaha. Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on Zia day of July, 2(108) PETITIONER a 3 n / R b . Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner association suhmits that the ground swed in the impugned order is not correct as admittedly provisions have been made in‘the budget for alternate education centers. . Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Shri M,P.S. Bhatia, counsel for the State/respondent No. 2 & 4 jointly submits that it is true that the government has closed alternate education centers in some of the districts as N.G.Os and other agencies have come forward to drive the children from their home and persuade them for regular education, and attendance in the schools. He further submits that a new scheme. namely 'Gyau Jyoti' has been framed for tn'bal districts, in order to comply with the provision 2l-A ofthe Constitution of India. . Be that as it may, the issue involved in this petition is not compliance of provision 21-A of the Constitution of India, as it is for the State Government to see that the children up to the age of 14 years are given proper education. The issue involved in this petition is asto whether the appointments of the petitioner members are in accordance with law, or the impugned orders, dis-continuing services of the petitioner members are illegal or irregular. . It is well settled principles of law that any appointment dehors die constitutional scheme of employment on temporary, dailywages or contract basis, cannot be held as regular appointment. It is not the case that the petitioner members were appointed through proper selection after wide publicity. In view of that, the appointment itself /> (r\‘ ,‘m r l i f l J l y { A c is not legal and the members of the petitioner association have no right to be reappointed or to continue in the service. (See Secretary, State of Kamataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others‘), 6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 14.06.2006 (Annexure P/9) cannot be violated with and needs no interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No‘order asto \lwhmw COStS. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu i i l ‘ , ‘ 2006 (4) scc 1