d> \y^ / IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WWT PETITION ( S ) No. A^. / 2009 C m PETITIONER SANJAY PATIL S/o Late Shri. G.R.Patil Aged about 46 years, Ex.Employee ofDistrict Treasury Office, Durg Resident at: MIG - 1/101-1 Hudco Sector, BmLAI District: Durg (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS w»'s ...Mli fe-vk" ..-•^^ ..-••"'^>3 ff f^«?°•• State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary General Administration Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, RADPUR(CG) The Sr. Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office, DURG(CG) Bl:: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIQNEJK_:-_ Kli: nr HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5845 of 2009 Petitioner Sanjay Patil Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8s another WRIT PETmON_UNDE£ARTICLE226722'^OF THE CONSTITUTIONLQP INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri B. P. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. OR D E R (Orall (Passed on this 9a dayofOctober, 2009) Heard. 1. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 6.11.2008 (Annexure P/28), passed by the respondent No.2, whereby it has been communicated to the petitioner that he is not entitled for regularization. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 4.4.1998 as part time Farrash/Waterman in the District Treasury Office, Durg on daily wages for 89 days. Thereafter, his term was extended for 89 days, time fo time, up to 29.1.2000. The petitioner made a representation on 14.3.2008 (Annexure P/23) for regularization in terms ofthe circular dated 9.1.1990 and also a representation dated 10.5.2008 (Annexure P/26. Since the representation of the petitioner was not decided, he filed Writ Petition (S) No. 5836/2008, which was disposed of ^ by order dated 20th October, 2008 (Annexure P/27) with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation, in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks. f'£ ••<•.. i'ii^^f° ^ 3. By the impugned order dated 6.11.2008 (Annexure P/28) it has been communicated to the petitioner that he is not entitled for regularization. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the documents appended thereto, it is apparent that the engagenient of the petidoner was on daily wages, as part time Farrash/Waterman. He was never appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of emplo3?ment. The nature of appointment of the petitioner appears to be purely on daily wages as part tirne employee, on temporary basis. The sarae was not done in accordance with rules and as such the pedtioner does not acquire any right to the post. It is well settled principle of law by a catena of decisions that the employee appointed de-hors the constitudonal scheme of employment and not in accordance with law, has no right to continuation, reinstatement or regularization in service. This is also not the case of the petitioner that he was legally appointed, in accordance with law. It is clearly established that the appoinfanent of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. 5. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Utnadevi (3) and others1 observed in para 47 as under: "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 recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointanent being temporary, casual or contractual in natojre. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the ' 2006 (4) SCC 1 •,A'^?^'^: .»'^:A ...'f 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 Public Service Coaimission. Therefore, the theoiy of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporaiy, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post." 6. The submission of the petitioner that some of the other similariy situated employees, who were appointed on daUy wages have been regularized, is noticed to be rejected. If the State Government has regularized some of the daily wagers, not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, this Court cannot issue a positive direction to legalize the illegal appointment on the ground that certain illegal appointments have been legalized/regularized by the employer. 7. Applying the well settled principles of law, as stated above, to the facts of the present case, wherein the petitioner was engaged on daily wage as part time Farrash/Waterman, purely on temporary basis, the petitioner has no right to the post. Thus, no direction can be issued to the respondents for regularization or reinstatement of the petitioner in service. 8. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is dismissed, accordingly. Amit/ Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge