?ET{TIONER RESPONDENTS Lav Kumar Shanna, aged about 48 years, son of Late Jaijairam Dubey, resident of village and Post Sambalpur, P.S. nandghat, Tah. Beinetara Distt. Durg (C.G.) Developmeni Corporation, through its Managing Director, CIDC, Raipur (CG) The Depot (Aagar) Manager, Chhattisgarh Infrastrucwre Development Comoratioa, Balauda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUITION OF INDIA. VERSUS . Chhattisgarh In&astructure k) Single Bench : Hon’ hie Justice Shri Satish K. Agmhotri. Present: Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate fOr the petitioner. The petitioner was admittedly appointed as driver on daily wages basis in the year 1980. The services ofthe petitioner was discontinued vide order dated 27.2.2002 on the ground that the petitioner indulged into activities of abusing and assaulting his fellow workers. The order was accordingly nassed under section 8 (a) b (6) ofthe Permanent Standing Order. Be that as it may. The petitioner has not filed any other document nor established his right to the post. The Supreme Court, Whiie dealing with the matters of daily Wagers, adhoo employees, probationers, temporary or contractual employees, not appointed following the procedure laid down under Articles l4, 16 and 309 ofthe Constitution oflndia, held that such appointment dehors the constitutional scheme amounts to back door entry in the matter of publio employment. 3. In the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and othersl, the Supreme Court observed as under: ORDER (i’assed on 8a; day of May, 2007) “45. While directing thai appointments, temporary or . casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person ‘coneemed has worked for some time and in some eases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain — not at ann’s length — since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts Whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the View that a person who as temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible.” “47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware ofthe consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Pubiic Service Commission.” 4i For the reasons above-stated and as per the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entitled to absorption/permanent status or regularisation in the service. 5. This petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge J Sd/- I l (2006) 4 SCC 1 AJnit