’BLE HIGH COURT OF N C I BILASPUR‘ RIT PETITION *(sj‘ I’Ib5g [20 17 W j 0 , I I / lu 'Bhok'u Lal Paikara So Bud Ram Pai§kara Aged about 50 V llg Gdpali, Viae — aa aal Iypi, Korba, VESUS“ R . S f Chhtgah tate ‘o a’tis’r Thgh h Sty Shl? rou te ecrear coo Ei Dp, DKS. duCatior eartment .. BhW Raip (CiG) a‘an, "ur ..’l Th District EducatiOn Officer e Dii Bilp (CG') strct— asur '.». WRIT PETI ON UNER D ARTICLE 226 OF THE (D w ‘ Distt. /1 I s RE BONDENTS' CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ' L - HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AJT BILASPUR ’ I ‘ ‘ 1 WRIT PETITION (S) No. 589 of2010 \ k v § i SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish’K. A " otri, J. V Present: Shn K S Pawar Advocate for the petmoner Shn Y S Thakur Deputy Advocate General f0. the State/respondents ‘ ORAL ORDER‘ (Passed on 08m day of February, £2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a vm't in the nature of mandamus ' > directing the respondents to grant similar benefit to the petitioner as per orderipassed by Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short the 5A1") in O A. No 624/1997 (Mallk Ram Stdar & Others v State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others) ‘ 2. The facts, m nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the 'petitiOner Was appointed as Assistant Teacher on ad hoe basis vide order dated 20.09. 1983 (Annexure P/l) for a period ofthree months on a fixed pay of Rs. 300/- per month by the respondent No. 2. However, vide- order dated 29.12.1983 (Annexure $77), the petitioner was removed horn service. ‘ 3. Shn' Pawar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner‘submits that in a Similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court v1de order dated / 7 09 2006 passed in W P (S) No 1588/2005 (Murh Prasad hashyap v ” _ tate ¢M.,P. & Others) disposed ofthe petition reservmg liberty to the S WRTT PETIh‘IdN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA A i PETH‘IONER : Bhoku Lal Paikara. « v \ 1 VERSUS J RESPONIiENTs : State ofChhattisgarh & Another, petitioner to make a representation to the r‘fespondent authorities in the light of the order dated 223 1997 sed by SAT in Original , Application No 624/1997 (supra) Shri Pawar further submits that the State Government has Issued a memo dateo 9 6 2008 (Annexure P/4) to all the Collectors and D1str1ct Educatxon Ofhcers statmg that the ad hoe teachers whose serv1ces have come to an end, thelr representauons may be dec1ded w1thln a penod of one month lfgthelr‘cases are sumlar to that of Murli Prasad Kashyap (supra) If in such cases reappomtment 1s made, those persons shall not be ent1tled to‘the salary for the penod they were out of service on the'basis of ‘no work-no pay’, Shri Pawar fuither contends that the action ofthe respondent authorities by not considering they caserof the petitioner. in light orthe ‘above circu1ar, is in contravention of the order passed by this Court m Murli Prasad Kashyap (supra). Per contra, learned counsel appearmg for the respondents submits that the petitioner was not appomted m accordance With the constitutional , scheme ot employment as the petitioner was appomted on ad hoe basis - Land in the appointment order itself, it is clearly mentioned that the services of the petitioner could be terminated at any point of time J without any notice, and thus, the petitioner was rightly removed from V service. . ’The question which arises in‘therpresent petition is asto whether the 1, petitioner appointed on ad hoc basis can‘continue on the post or be ‘reinstated in service when his service has been discontinued or disengaged thereafter. The issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra asthe L \grr/ \ I - 7 upreme Court, in ai‘catena of decisions has made clear that the i S % v1 remstate e ppommt sel ls de rs the _Lserce or ment Th aten 1tf ho constmmonal scheme of employment } . AdmIttedly, the petltloner was appomted en ad hoc hams and not m accordance w1th the constxtutlonal scheme of employment Th appomtment of the pet1t1oner was purelly on temporary hams temporary, ad hoc employee/dmly wager cannot claun regularizauon, contmuance or remsta ement m sennce on the bas1s of appomtment, whlch was temporaxy and not 1n accordance w1th law and the same was de hors the const1tut10nal scheme of employment (See Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Others vs. Umadevra’) and Others}, Indian D_rugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd v [Workmeri Indian Drugs- & Pharmaceuticals $c1al Liquza'ator v Dayanand and others3 and Stare ofPzmJab r ‘ 1 s v Surjtt Smgh and Others ) basrs the Supreme Court m Umadevz (supra), observed as under “Thus 1t 1s clear that adherence to the rule of equahty 1n pubhc employment 1s a bas1c feature of our Constltutron and smce the rule of law 1s the core of our Constrtutton, - a court would certamly be disabled h'om ' : passmg an order upholdmg a vrolatron o Article 14 or 1n order-mg the overlookmg of the need to comply w1th the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consrstent w1th the scheme for public employment tlus Court wlnle laymg down the law has necessarrly to hold that unless the appointment 1s m termsof the relevant rules and after a proper competition among 1 (2006) 4 scc 1_ r. 2 2007(1) scc 408 3 (2003) 103001 4 (2009).9 scc 514 w e A i .‘ 0 f 5 WP (S) No 1743 of2009 deemed on 28-4—2009 ' W P (S) No 1347 of 2005 decided on 26-2-2008 WP (S) No 5845 of/2009 decided on 9-10-2009 (2007) 4 scc 54 qualifiéd persons, the saine would not confer any right on the appointee.” The above ratio laid down by the Supreme éourt has been reiterated by ‘ thls Court mAshwam Kumar Verma & Others v State ofChhattlgarh & Another; and Somendra Pratap Smgh v Tie State ofMP & others Agamst the order passed in Somendra Pratap'Singh (supra), the petitioner therein preferred a writ appea§l bemg WA (PR) No 2077/2008, which was dismissed by theD1v1s10n Bench of this Court by oraer hated 29042008 annmmg the order passed by the Single Bench. Thereagainst, the matter was taken upto the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition being SLP(C) No 27190/2008 (Somendra Pratap Smgh v State of Chhamsgarh & Others) which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court afmmng the View taken by th1s Court v1de its order dated 23 03 2009 This Court m Sanjay Paul v State ofChhamsgarh & Another while dealing With snnilar issue observed that “if the State Government has > regularized some ofthe daily wagers, not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, this iCouit cannot issue a positive direction to legalise the illegal appointment on the ground that certain illegal appointments have been legalized/regularized by the employer. In this context, the Supreme Court, in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of Indiai observed as under: I “34. It is not a case where appointment was irregular. If an appointment is Ii irregular the same can be regularised. The \ a Couxt may not take senous note of an irregularlty w1thm the meanmg of the provxsmns of the Act But 1f an appomtment 1s xllegal 1t 1s non est m the eye of law wh1ch renders the appomtment to be anulllty " 1 \ \ ‘ ‘ Futther m State ofPunJab & another v Sum! Smgh & Others” the Supreme Court reaffirmed the above ratio in the following terms: - 12. make “39'. We an would, observation however, thal the before submission parting of the learned, counsel that only because some juniors have got the benefit, the l same by itself cannot be a ground for extending the same benefit to the respondents herein It 1s now well known ‘ that the equality clause contained in Article 14 should be invoked only where _ the parties are similarly situated and where V orders passed in their favour are legal and ' not illegal. lthas a positive concep .” In View of foregoing, for the reasons stated hereinabove and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe present case wherein the etitioner was apointed purely on temporary basis; thus, he is not p p SATISH K AGNIHOTRI 9 (2009)'9 SCC 51¢ l —