K;.;, l!e oen ^ 'r ^ ^ In the Honble Hish Court of Chhatishgarh at Bilaspur (C.G.) W.P. No..........2:a8......2005 ^•-•: ^s^.. ^^-1-;'" Petitioner Ku. Rituja Shanna aged 25 years daughter ofShri Ramawatar Shanna, Assistant Professer (Contract System adhoc Appomtee) Govt. College Balod, Tahsil Balod District Durg (C.G.) Versus Resppondent The State Govemment ofChhattishgarh Through the Secretary, College Education Muristry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ^"1. Govt. Science,Arts & Commerce College,, Balod Tahsil Balod Distt. Durg (C.G.) Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia |}t^"lf'fl!E:S..^».,ys^n^" ^^f /(.-.Z-to H1GH CQURT_OF CH}-!ATT!SGARH : BiLASPUR PETiTiONER RESPONDENTS WRiT PET1TION N0.576 OF 2004 Homan Singh Versus State Government of Chhattisgarh & 'other And W.P. Nos.577, 572 & 2346 of 2004 and W.P.Nos.404 & 298 of 2005 (Writ Petitions under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Sinqle Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma and Shri Chandresh Shrivastava. counsei for t'ne resoective Detitioners. Shrl M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Go'A. Advocate for the State. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on this 15'" dav of Februan/. 2010) 1) Since W.P.Nos.576, 577, 572 & 2346 of 2004 snd W.P. Nos. 404 & 298 of 2005 invoive a common question of law as v/el! as common facts and. as such. all ths oetitions are beina considered toaether and disoosed of bv this common order. 2) Bv these Detitions, the Detitioners seek a direction to th° resoondent authorities to consider their resDective cases for reaulanzation of their sen/ices from the date of their initia! appolntment on daiiy wages basis. 3) Learned counse! appearing for the petitioners submits that initiaiiy She petitioners were appointed in the respondent department for a period of 89 days on daily wages, thereafier the said period was extended from time to time. but tilt date-the services of the oetitioners have not been reauiarized in spite of the fact that'the v/ork and conduct of the oetitioners are found satisfacioni'. Thus. these oetitions. Ul! 4) 5) 6) / i On the other hand, !ea'ned counsel aDDearina for the State submits that the petitioners were not aooointed 'n accordance with the constitutlona! scheme of empioyment, as the petitioners were appointed on daiiy wages basis. Even ths services of the daily wager could be terminated at anv point of time without anv notice. and thus. the petitioners are not entitied to anv rslief. 'i have heard learned counse! apDearina for the oarties. oerused the Dleadinqs and the documents aopended thereto. The issue invotved in the present petition is no longer res integra as the Suoreme CourS. in a catena of decislons has made ciear that the employees appointed on daily wages basis have no right to continue in service or reauiarization. The aopointment itseif is de hors the constitutionai scheme of empioyment. Admittediy. the Detitione's wers aopointed on daily waoes basis and not in accordance with the constitutionai scheme of empioyment. The appointment of the petitioners was purely on tejTiporary bas's. A temporary, sa' hoc empioyee/daily wager cannot clairn regu!arization, continuance or reinstatement in sep/ice on ttis basis of appointrrsent, which was temporary and not in accordance v/tth !aw and the same was cte hors the constitutionei scheme of emDlovment. CSee Secretary, Siate of Karnataka and Ot'ners vs. Umactew (3i ana' Others', tndian Drugs & P.harmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen. !nd!an Df'iigs & Phsrmacs'jtica.'s Ltd.. Qff'c'sl L'^u'dstor v. Dayanand and others' and State ofpunjab and Qthers'/. SurjstS!ngh and Othsrs). ; (2006) 4 SCC 1 22007(:1)SCC.iS08 3 /onnp^ -in ctr'rN -i !.^'^^1'--1 : SU ^J\^\»f > A ^^n.Q^ Q C;f~l^c;^^ i^i-tLi'^/ y o<-rl>-/ ^.; i / ^ 8) With regard to regularisstion of the employees work'ng o" daily waaes basis, the Supreme Court !R Umadevi (sucra). observed as under: 'Thus. it is clear that adherence to She ruie of equality in public emptoyment te a bassc feature of our Constitution and since the rule of !aw is the core of our Constitution. a court would certainly be disabied from passing an order upholds'ng a yioiation ofArticSe 14 or 'in ordering the overtooking of t.he nsed to compiy v.'ith the requirements of Articie 14 read with Articie 16 of the Constitution. Therefors. consistent with t'i° scheme for public employment, this Court while iaying down the !aw, has necessarily to ho!d that uniess the appointment is in terms of the reievant rutes and after a proper comDetltion amonc auaiified oersons, the same "'oUi'd not confer a,"y right on the appointee." 9) -40) The above ratio laid down bv She Supreme Court has been reiterated by this Court in Ashwani Kumar Verma & Oihgrs v. Stats of Ohhsttic^a'i^ St Anothsr snd Som^ndfs Pr3iss S'nQh v. Th^ Ststff of M.P. 8i othsrsv:' Aasinst th$ ordcr ossssd In Somendlts Pfstsp Sfnc!h (supra), the petit'oner therein preferred a writ appeai being W.A. (PR) No. 2077 of 2008, which was dismlssed bv ths Dr/ision Sench of this Court by order dated 29-4-2008 affirming the order passed by She Sinale Bench. ThereaQainst. the matter was taken up to ths Suoreme Court bv filing SDeciai Leave Petition beinq S.L.P.(C) .No. 27190/2008 (Somendra Pratsp Singh v. State of ChhattSsgarh & Others}, which was 'also dismissed by the Supreme Court affirming the view taken by this Court, vlde its order dated 23-3-2009. Thls Court EH San/QV PsW v. Sts^ of OhhsftfsQarh & AncihQ^. whHs deai'ng with s'mjlar issue observed that "if the State Government has reguiarized some of the dai'y wagers, not appointed jn accordance 5v"v'P (S) N'o. 1743 cf 2009 c'ecjded on 28-4-2009 s W. P.(S) No. 1 347 of 2005 decidec! cn 26-2-2008 7 WP (S) No.5845 of 2009 decided on 9-10-2008 -1 / ..„„..^.....—.....nMUn-tidWBfc;. ^ i-iown with the constitutlona! scheme of emptoyment, this Court cannot issue a positive direction to legal!se the iliega! appointment on the ground that certain illegai appointments have been legaiized/reguiarized by the employer. 11') in this context, the Supreme Court, in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union oflndia. obser/sd as under: "34. It Is not a case v/here appointment was irregu'ar. 'f an appointrr;e"t is irreguiar, the same can be regularised. The Court may not take serious note of an trrsgu'arity within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. But if an appointment is iilega!, it is non est in the eye of law, which rend&rs the appointment to bs a nuliity." 12) Furthsr. 'n Stste of PulSab & snother v. S'Jiiit Sinyh & Others. Supreme Court reaffirmed the above ratio in the following terms: "39. We wouid, however, before parting make an observation that the submission of the iearned counsel that only because some juniors have got the benefit, the same by itself cannot be a ground for extending the same benefit io the resDondents herein. !t is now wel! known that the equaiity clauss contained 'm Articie 14 shou!d be invoked oniy where the parties are simiteriy situated and where ordsrs passea' in their favour are iega! and not ii'egai. It has a positive concept.' 13') 14) 15) ^ !n view offoreaoma. forthe reasons stated hereinabove and apRiyina the weil settied princtples of !aw to the facts of the present case wherein the petstioners were ap&ointed pu-ely on temporary basis, thev are not entitled to anv re [•^•f in the resutt. the writ petitions are dismissed. There shai! be no order asto costs. SdA ' Satish K. AgnihQtri Judge ^UUf') 4 is(J\J b4 °(2009)9SCC514 iiir