"""\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR' DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Petition (PILL No.7422 of 2009 Petitioner Raj Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Tirath Lai Gupta, Aged about 56 years, R/o Kanhaiyapuri, Kasardih, Durg, C.G. VERsus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Genera! Administration Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Resgondent Writ etition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Present : Shri Rishi Rahui Soni and Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsei the Shri State/ Kishore respondent. Bhaduri, Additional Advocate Generai for for the petitioner. ORDER (29m January, 2010) The foilowing order of the Court was passed »by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Petitioner Raj Kumar Gupta, claiming himself to be a public. spirited person has tiled this writ petition styled as ‘Pubiic interest Litigation’, for the foilowing reliefs : “10.1 That, this Ho‘n'ble Court may kindly be pieased to caii for the entire records in respect of the petitioner organization’s claim. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased” to quash Circular dated 05/03/2008 (Annexure P/1) by issuing any suitable Writ or Writ in the nature of Certiorari. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent to comply the principies laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case State of Karnataka and others Versus Umadevi and others, reported in 2006(4) SCC-1 in matter of regularization of Adhoc/ contact/ Daily wages employees by issuing any suitable Writ or Writ of Mandamus. 10.4 Any other relief, which Hon’ble court deems to be tit and proper of this case in favour of the interest of unemployed youth of Chhattisgarh State C.G. may kindly be allowed. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given." Lk‘ 3) The petitioner, thus, in substance is seeking quashlng of the Circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure-Pll) issued by the respondent/ State apparently in compliance of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006(4) SCC-‘t, as one time scheme for regularization of those daily wagers] contingency paidremployee who were in service for a period of more than ten years. 4) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and the contents of Annexure-P/1, we do not find any good ground for grant of the reliefs sought by the petitioner in this writ petition filed as ‘Public Interest Litigation’. 5) The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. i i 6) Security amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited by the petitioner is forfeited. Sd/- _ —l J i Suni] Kumar Sinha: Chief Justice i Judge Sd/— subbu E