^— ^w^^ 73 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILA8PUR SLB. : HON'BLE MR. 8ATI8H IC AGNIHOTM, J. PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (8) No. 483 of2005. Gopal KrishnaOoiSMtt RESPONDENT8 VER8US : 1. Slate of M.P. (^irough tfae Seeretai-y Edacation DepartoieDt) Bhopal. 2. Principal Govt. College, V^shaM Nagar (Bhilai) Durg. 3. Priacipal Governmettt Arte emd Science College, Durg(M.P.) |»iiiii""m«: Present: Shri F.S.Khare, Advocate for the petitioneF. Shri V.V.S.Moortfiy, Additional Advocate Geaeral for tiie State/respondents, ORDER (Passed on 12th ofMarch, 2007) 1. The petitioner was appomted on adhoc and temporaiy basis vtde order dated 7 February 1990 (Anaexure A/l) on Ihe post ofFMrash by the Principal, Goverament Arts aad Science College, Durg, M.P. The condition ofappointment was that m the event propw selectioii takes plae^ the petitioner has to apply aloagwith others for regular appointment. Ther^fter, it appears that though tiie seleetion to@k place but no interview letter eould be sent to him oa aceouiit oftfie fact he did not qualify in the writtea test. The pethioner has filed this -2- (^) petition seeking a wril/direettOD agaiast respoadeni no. 2 to the effect that as per the terms of appointment, the petitioner ought to have been interviewed for selection. i.^: 2. The leamed Counsel appearing for the petttioner sttbmits that the petitioner was entitled to appear before the Comtnittee for interview as per the twms ofthe order. 3. Shri Moorthy, learaed counsel appearing for the Sta'te/respotaKtents submit that the mitial appointment of the petitioaer was defaors Itie constitutional scheme ofthe employment and as suetitfiepetitioner has no right to tiie post. Oa the questiQn ofterms ofappointeen^ it is submitted that there was oo assuranee to invite him for mterview but it was a simple eondNon to the effeet that as atid when th© selection takes plaee, the petitioner would be free to compete alongwith others for regularappotntment. 4. I have heard the leamed counsel appearing for the pftrties aad have perosed the plesdmgs and doeuments appeiidedthereto. Sufenrissions of fhe leamed cotinsel for the respondents merit acceptanee as the same is based on the appointment order dated 7.2.1990. The petitioner has no right to be considered for mterview on tfae basis of appointment order on adhoe aad temporary basis. TNs was the eondition ofthe appointment to faee the selectipn process alongwith other eligibte candidates for being sppointed on regular basis. The petitioner has even otherwise, not aequired aiiy right to the postsuid ,.w^ -3- fiirther no right to Gontinua^on or consideration for seleetioti. The petitioner applied for regular appointoent and ^ie petilioaer was iinsuccessfiil in the seleetion process, 5. Thiis, this petition is devoid ofmerit. The petition is aceor-diagty dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit ^uniiii"—.