IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’PI‘ISGARH : BILASPUR Wlit Petition (L) No. 4477 of 2008 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shn' Satish K. Agnihotn’ J.) Sh1i D. R. Shanna, Senior Advocate with Ms Swati Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State. O R D E R (Passed on this 14th Day ofAugust, 2008) The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 29.3.2008 (Annexm‘e P/ 1)., passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in Case No. 1/I.D./2007(Ref.), on the ground that the principles of natural justice was not followed while disengaging the services of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a casual worker and engaged by the Divisional Forest Ohicer as and when his services was required, for the purpose of doing some work as Labour. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the \ Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh on 24.12.2006. 0n consideration ofaJl the facts and submissions Petitions): Vinod Kumar Vaish, Son of Ramji Lal Vaish, aged about 5O years, Rfo. Village Devpura, Post and RS. Saihewara, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, Distn'ct Rajnandgaon (Clix) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Fomst Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Forest bEmer, Forest Division, Khajragarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. The Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, Through z Presiding Oificer, Distu’ct. Rajnandgaon (C.G.} made by the parties, the Labour Court cams to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a rsgular worker and he has not completed 240 days in the preceding year and earlier. Thus, the case of the petitioner does not come within the purview of retrenchment. The appointment of the petitioner was on casual basis, on availability of the work. Thus, the petitiOner was not entitled to any relief of retrenchment or continuation in his engagement. The Supteme Court, in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3} and othersl 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 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 Public Service Commission. 'l‘herefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, 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.” WC i m‘ a 4. The nature of appointment of the petitioner waS not in accordance with Rules and as such the petitioner does not acquire any light to the post. It is well settled pn'nciple of law by a catena of decisions that the employee appointed dehors the. constitutional scheme of employment and not in accordance with law, has no right to continuation, reinstatement. or regularization in service. This is also not a case Where the petitioner has established that he was legally appointed. It is clearly established that the appointment of the ' petitioner was not in accordance with law. 5. Applying the well settled principles of law, as stated above, to the facts of the present case, wherein the petitioner was appointed on casual basis on availability of work and his services was terminated, he has no right to the post. 6. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ‘ Satish K‘ Judge , Thakux Sdl‘