>v,w ^t C53 2 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAHISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) NO.^^G /2006 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/'/- OF THE CONSTITUTION OF.INDIA, PETITIONER -•^••-v .••''" ,<^" {^w .••'-67 /v: / Rupendra Bisen, aged about 27 years, son of Shri Kheman Lal Bisen, Ex-Accountant, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Gariyaband, resident of Block No. 1-D, Street No.41, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^ RESPO_NDENTS VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - the Secretary, Department of Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) —^t- -^•-^-^ -" ..,'••.'-'' -i " ^ ''^ ...l^fc ^d.^v* ^^ 9-.^- "^t:t !^W,ft- ~~ ^J. -5. /"I The Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalay, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, district Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4. Dirrector, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, District Raipur (C.G.) District Project Coordinator Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Vikashkhand strot Khand Samanvayak, Rajiv GgMaglhi Shiksha Mission, Block /;@Ffice Chhura, Garyaband Qistt. Raipur (C.G.) ^7. Chhatfisgarh Insfitu.te for Research & Development, through Project Manager, MIG - 30, . Sector-3, Dindayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Dangania, .Raipur (C.G.) !^ z°^ XI-HC-78 tllHC'll <ai*l(^ 3:S! ••<ll<llcl<<, »i{|yi<B,fs|dltiy< _. _ .Ki...^ .^. A-? .6.?. ^ ?.- ^2QO(. 3TI^?Tt)aqi (yit^°«<isr) an^T^rf^iN; craT3n^rsbtii«ti ?TaTW(if?;r3T)^r 111.12.2006 Mr. Vinay Pandey, counsel for| Mrs. Anju Aahuja, Dy. G.A. foilthe Heard on admission. This petition is directed age|jnst KAnnexure P/4) passed by respond^nt [been addressed by respondent ;hhattisgarh Researeh and |communicating that in compliance |services of 16 employees provided (?n [District OfRce, Raipur are relieved |a copy of this memo has been forwaijded Learned counsel forthe petiticfner |the petitioner is that he was appfointed poordinator (Vikaskhand Strot Kh^f phiksha Mission, Chhura, District R^i [appointed under placement of re^pondent Iremoved vide order of Annexure P/14 <hi<<F<i41-i iiicri ^'tei^<Ri«i< ^3Tf^IT3I7^T the petitioner. State/respondent. the order dated 31.8.2005 No. 5, by which a memo has |No. 5 to Programme Officer, pevelopment Institute, Raipur lof their letter dated 12.7.2005 t?n ptacement services under the services w.e.f. 31.8.2005 and to the petitioner also. frtm »submits that the grievance of as Accountant in Block nd Samanvayak, Rajiv Gandhi ipur) on contract basis. He was No. 7 and has been w.e.f. 31.8.2005. The above XI-HC-78 3^ •^wM-ti, w^[wie, ^viwy. . wf-^^i ^^tf° <IIH^TTai*1|c»l ^ 200 & 3ii^;'i fw> (yifltyT) sTi^rqirf^ira; aw sn^?r ainN; ?;RIRK Hf^cT SIT^T order of Annexure P/4 has been pasfsed without any notice against the principles of natural justice. He fijirther submits that there was an agreement of Annexure P/1 be|tween respondent No. 4 and °hi<iFn<fl-f ii>iciT^'')Wt<[ai«i< ^sif^iTsn^r respondent No. 7 for procuring man| No. 4 and as per this agreement provide the above service and in f] the petitioner and other persons w^re appointed vide Annexure P/2. They were placed in the sen/ices o| agreement of Annexure P/1. Th^ petitioner joined his duties on 1.3.2005 vide his joining report Anrjexure P/3 and since then he was discharging his duties satisfactorily. withdrawn by respondent No. 7 vide sower for the office of respondent respondent No. 7 has agreed to ursuance of the said agreement, respondent No. 6 on the basis of However, his services have been Annexure P/4 w.e.f. 31.8.2005. It is further submitted that |temporary employees cannot be replaced by other ad hoc or tertiporary employees whereas the services of the petitioner are sought to be replaced by some other persons in the post of Accountant. have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. F.1.0. ^-^. XI-HC-78 +<1*<WI Sb+lich 3:5?^TraRTiT, »TTl.t<'IS;RlflWy,< ^w.:<;.a./7...G-f.^ ?R;200^ 3T1^?T<4a<») ('icli'^a«i<T) 3n^r SRT R-ii«b dW 3t)^T sbKi* e v ^ ^y^- ??gRRgf?cr3T)cRT responflent From perusal of order of An| petitioner was sent to responden] agreement of Annexure P/1 on 4,800/-. This order does not envi services whereas the agreement righte and liability between The petitioner has not filed any employer and empioyee relationsh] himself. The ptacement of the pel agreement of Annexure P/1 and right to hold the post on which he facts and circumstances of the cas^ establish any legal rightto hold the h* In the result, no case is ma|de out for interference under writ jurisdiction. The petition being de^oid of substance deserves to be 'tiwtci'h-i *iit<(iTfftetit<Ri<^i< ^aiRliTsn^T hexure P/2 it is observed that the t No. 6 in accordance with the coi|itract basis on a fixed pay of Rs. i^age terms and conditions of the |of Annexure P/1 pertains to the No. 4 and respondent No. 7. dibcument to show that there is an (p between respondent No. 7 and titioner is in accordance with the could not demonstrate any legal |was appointed. Therefore, in the |, the petitioner has utterly failed to jiost which he was occupying. dismissed at the admission stage it^ In view of the above order, and M.W.P.No. 4918/06 stand disp^sed of. elfand is accordinglydismissed. A.No. 11481/06,1.A.No. 11482/06 Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge ^