@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1888 of20{}0 PETITIONER i Gorelal Thawait S/o Panchram Thawait aged about 3O years C/o Aljun Sav Lodhipara Saxkanda Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Madhya Pradesh, through it Secretary Agiculture Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP). RESPONDENTS : 2. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Krisak Nagar, Raipur (MP). 3.enior Scientist Regional Agiculture Resech Centre Sarkada Bilaspur (CG) ‘S ar n (RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) W ‘ ‘ : Shri H.B. Agawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No. l. Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 03 of March, 200 1. Heard learned counsel appearin for the petitioner and responnts. g de 2. 0n perusal of e pleadings and documents appended thereto, it. appears th that, the petitioner w appointe as Wireman/Eleetrieian on daily wage as d s basis. The petitioner has not tiled a copy of appointment order but copies of other relevant documents have been tiled, wherein it is indicated that the petitoner was working as daily wagers. i 3. The State Government, by order dated 31.12.99 held that any appointment made on daily wages after 01.01.89 will be held as illegal and the odieers appointing daily wagers be held responsible and the payment made thereon may be recovered nom the officers concerned. 4. The petitioner seeks quashing ofthe order dated 27.01.2000 (Annexure P/l) and further a direction to the respondent No. .3 to regularize all the daily wages workers appointed since 1988. It is informed that at that point oftime there was a circular dated 31.12.88. As per circular dated 25.09.98 wherein (SB: Honhle Mr. Satish K. Agnihom, J.) Present H $) it was provided that all the employees appointed on daily wages basis prior to 31.12.88 shall be considered for regularization. . Be that as it may, now with the passage of time, law has changed. All {lie decisions directing regularization of the employees appointed, dehors the constitution scheme of employment and not in accordance with law, impliedly stand ovemlled, in view ofthe decision ofthe Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and othersl. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down clear enunciation of law which was followed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court. Some are Accounts Ofiicer (A&I) ARSRTC and others Vs. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao and others 2, Sunder Prasad Tiwari Vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Panshad'and others 3, Nagar Mahapah'ka (now Municipal Corp.) Vs. State ofU.P. and others 4 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Man Singh 5 . . In the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others l (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under: "45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual be regularized or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain- not at arm's length-since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the View that a person who has temporarily‘or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By going so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. #7.? ”47. Whea a person enters a temporary employniéut or get engagement as a comractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper seleotion as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being . temporary, casual or contraetual in nature. Such 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." i 7. In the light of the above, the petitioner cannot claim any regularization or reinstatement in service on the basis of their appointments which was temporary and not in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl- V Satish K. Agnihotri Judge y sahu