o ft a own t0| +>' 'vi 'iU Si "H •rt | (O tO os •-1 10 % H ff 4» • 99 «-< 1 ^l •rt -rt 'fl Oi • 'B' <0 ®. ^ "> ?fl w y " S4 +>. u -"..t <M S ^ <d rt 4» » u w . •» ' w 3< u ^ •ii 0< t. % (B i-1 fi 6 t-t t4 t H tt & r4 t< M !ia o - »» ~ «> • W «ft »» o* 'tt IU •A >-1 i a <H ^, • Tl •ri s- *v4 !1 fl l^ s LJ Ao ^ |S -J ri7 f- i t- 1 ..y.. (,.L^. »lll"il . ::V£tS2XSK^ sf:^.STV '„"^ HIGH COUST OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETmONERS WRTT PETmON (S) No.1502 OF 2005 Latel Singh Sarsudhe & Others Versus State ofMadhva Pradesh & CXhers Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, Present:- Shri V.G. Tamaskar, eounsel for the petitioaers. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyerfor the State. ORDER (ORAL.) (Passed onthis l5tt day ofDecember, 2009) /\FR 1. With the consent ofleamed counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. By this pe'dtion, tlie petitioners seek a direction to the respondent- autliorities to regiilarize the sen'ices ofthe petitioners as OfBce Peons. 3. Learaed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits tliat the petitioners were working m the respondent department on temporan,- basis since 1989, 1990,1990,1991,1992, 1993 and 1994, respectively, but tffl date their serviees have not been regularized in spite of the fact that the petitioners have atready speat their major ponion of youth in the sen'ices of the respondents. The petitionsrs belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe cate.sories. The respondent authorities have a3so issuee instructions fbr regularization ofthe employees working on temporan' basis, evea then also, the cases of the petitioners have not been considered. Ttais, this petition. 4. Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were not appointed in accordancs with the constitirtional scheme ofemplovment. Tiws^i^»^^..y^:- S-^fit ,< 8. I have lieai-d leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused tlie pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employmeiit- as without any advertissmeat or exatBination or intervievv, the appointments were made. The appointment of the petitioners was purely on temporan' basis. TIie petitioners have neither pleaded anything with regard to their selection process nor have filed anv document in this re.aard. Be that as it may, a temporaty employee/daily wager caimot claim regiilarization, contmuance or reinstatement in sen'ice on the basis of appomtmeat, which v,as teiiiporary and aot in accordance with 3av/ and de hors the constitutional sehems of emplovment. (See Secretarv. State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others , Indian Dnigs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Worhnen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , Official Liqiiidator v. Dayanand and oihers and State ofPunjab and Others v. Su'rjit Singh anci Others }. The contention of the petitioners tliat tlie State Govemment directed all the departments to regularize the sen'ices of the employees working on tsmporan'- basis is concerned, the same is noticed to be rejected. as in Uniadevi (supra), the Supreme Court obser\7ed as under: Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equaiity in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since tlie m3e oflaw is the core ofour Constitution. a court would ceitainly be disabled from passiag aii order upholding a violation ofAilicle 14 or in orderma the overlookuig of the need to (2006) 4 SCC 1 2007 {1) SCC 40S ^n.c't^ ] n sir"1? i ^L,;.'VO ! 11_? 0^< f2009)9SCC514 comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of tlie Constitutioti. Thersfore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, tliis Court wliile laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in tenns of the relevant niles and after a proper competition among qualified pei-soiis, the sanie would not confer any right on the appointee." The above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court has been reiterated by this Court mAshwani Kumar Verrna & Others v. State ofChhattigarh & Another and Somendra Pratap Singh v. The State ofM.P. & others . Against the order passed in Somendra Pratap Singh (siipra), fhe petitioner therein prefeiTed a wnt appeal being W.A. (PR) No. 2077,'2008, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29.04.2008 afHrming the order passed by the Single Bench. Thereagainst, tlie matter Vv'as taken upto the Supreme Court by filing Speeial Leave Pstition being S.L.P.(C) No. 27190/2008 (Somendra Pratap Smgh v. State of Chhattfsgarh & Others), which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court affirming the view taken by this Court, vide its order dated'23.03.2009. This Court m Sanj'a}' Patil v. State of Chhauisgarh & Anothe/, wliile dealing with similar issus observed fhat "if the State Government has regularized some ofthe dmly vwgers, r,ot appointed in accordance with the coiistitutional scheme of emphyment, this Cozirt cannot. issue a positive direction tc- legalise the illegal appointinent on the groiind that certajn illegal appomtments have been legalized/resitlarized by the employer. ' ^T ('S) No.1743 of 2009 decided on 28-4-2009 ' W.P.(S) No. !347 of 2005 decided on 26-2-2008 ' ^W (S) No.5845 of 2009 decided on 9-10-2009 'ais "% J' M 11. In this context, the Supreme Court, mAshokKumar Sonkar v. Union of Ind'ia , obsei-ved as under: "34. It is not a case where appointiuent was irregular. If an appointment is irregular, tlie same can be regularised. The Court mav not take sei-ious notc of au m-egulanty within the ' meaning ofthe provisions ofthe Act. But ifan appomtment is illegal, it is non est in the eye of law, which renders the appointment to be a nullity. " 17 Further, in State ofPiinjab & another v. Sw'jit Singh & Others, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the above ratio in the following terms: "39. We would, however, before parting make an observation that the subiiiission of the leamed counsel that onlv because some juniofs have gotthe benefit, the saine by itself cannot be a grouad for extending the same benefit to the respoadents herein. It is now well kaowii that the equa!ity clause contained in Article 14 should be invoked onlv where the parties are similarly situated and where orders passed in theii- favour are legal and not illegal. It bas a positive concept." In viev/ of foregoms, for the reasons stated hereinabove and applymg the wsll settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe present case wherein the petitioners were appointed purely on temporar}' basis, thus, they are not entitled to anv relief. 14. Li the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs.t^ %^^e ' (2007) 4 SCC 54 " (2009) 9 SCC 514