HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.629 of 2010 APPELLANTS: Munaku Ram Patel, agad. about 41 years, S/o hm Dhanaram Patel, Rjo Chandaniyapala Wani No.07? Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) 2. Santosh Kumar Rathore, aged about 36 years, S/o Slni Badn‘ Rathore, R/o Bonga 'I‘alab, Wanfl No.10, Janjgir, Disirict Janjgir Champa(CG) 3. Hirde Lal Soni, aged about 42 years, S/o Shri Panchram Soni, R/o Village Kosmedeeh, POSt Otflce Dcogaon (Mastun', Tahsil, Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: The State of Chhattisgarh, through ths Secretaiy, Department of Public Works, DKS Bhawan, Mantrahya, Raipur (CG) Superintendjng Engineer, Publio Works Department, éilaspvé Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) The Executive Engineer, Public Hcglkth Engineering Depaxtment, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel for the appeilants. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. JUDGMENT (13+2011) 1. Heani on LA. No. 1, application for condonation ofdelay. ~ 2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and. delay of 73 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. I 3. The. appellants werc employed. a$ Daily Wage Employms in the year 1987 with the respondents deparnnent, however, respondent No.1 vide order dated 6th February, 2010 rejected the representations made by the appellants in comyliance of the order dated 10-11-2008 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.6255/ 2008 against their termination from service. The second writ petition flied by the appellants has been further dismissed by the impugned order, hence this writ appeal. Smt. Renu Kochar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were appointed prior to 1997 whereas their representations have been rejected with an. observation that those employees, who were appointed prior to 1997 and. were working till date, were to he regularized whereas the appellants had produced ample evidence to show that they were working prior to 1997‘ . Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the impugned orde as also the order‘dated 6—2—20 10 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the representations of the appellants. 6. So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellants that their representations have wrongly been rejected is concerned, from perusal of the order dated. 6-2-2010, it is evident that the appellants worked with the respondents department from 1-6-1989 to 30th April 1993 whereas the services of those employees who were appointed prior to 1997 and were working till date were to he regularized. -k 7. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the impugned order, we are entirely in agreement with the observations of learned Single Judge in the impugned order that since their appointment was not in accordance with. the recruitment rules and that their appointments were irregular and illegal, in View of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others Vs. Umadevi {3) and others {(2006) 4 SCC 1}, the petitioners’ claim for regularization is misconceived in law. . 8. In the result, we do not find any substance in this writ appeal, the same deserves to be and is herebv dismissed. \ __._—p. .m \ Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra , Judge j sm— KN. CHANDRAKAR Judge Barve l r ,