mCH CX>URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petttion No. 1196 of2000 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1. Anm Tiwari S/o Shri P.R. Tiwari, aged about 34 years, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (MP) ( now CG). 2. Mahendra Kumar Chandrakar aged 37 years Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur (MP). 3. Smt. Bina PiUai W/o P Pillai aged 37 years Raviyam Telibandha, Raipur (MP). 4. Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o R.D. Yadav agpd abut 35 years, R/o village Chheri Khedi, Raipur (MP). 5. Jayant Sutawane S/o C.L. Sutawane aged about 35 years, resident ofRajendra Nagar, Ring Road, Raipir (MP). 6. SmL Rajeshwari Shanna W/o Late Badri Prasad Shanna, aged about 32 years, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Raipur(MP). 7. Shobha Ram Sahu aged about 32 years village Chheri Khedi, Raipur (MP). 8. Smt. Kulwaut Kaur aged 40 years Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (MP). 9. Smt. N.Barik Aged 358 years, W/o U.S. Barik Kulpati Niwas Parisar, Indira Gandhi Krishi ViAwavidyalaya, Raipur(MP). lO.Smt. Shashikala Tiwari, aged about 36 years W/o K.K. Gaurata Krishak Nagar Nora, Raipir (MP). ll.Maidani Kumar Thakur S/o D.R. Thakur aged 37 years, Bramhanpara Raipur (MP). 12-Chandra Shekhar Kashyap aged about 36 years S/o Shri B.K. Kashyap, Village Chandkhuri Tahsil & Distt. Raipiur (MP). 13.Smt. Motmbai Nighad W/o Santuram Nishad aged about 32 years, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipir (MP). 14.Hematit Kumar Sao aged 39 years S/o Late Dewabcam Sao Shankar Nagar, Raipur (MP). 15.Ganeshram Yadav, aged about 41 years S/o G.R. Yadav resident ofKhamhardig Raipur (MP). 16.Teejuram Sahu aged about 29 years, S/o Sukaluram Sahu, village Nora, Tahsil and District Raipur (MP). 17.Mansukh Yadav S/o Dev Bagas Yadav aged about 28 years, vice Chancellor's resident campus, Raipur (MP). IS.Balraj S/o Bal Gairaiya aged about 34 years Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Tahsil and District Raipur (MP). 19.Sushil Kumar Dhandharate aged about 37 years, Co- ordination Cell, Bhopal ladira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (MP). VERSUS 1. State of MaAya Pradesh, through it Secretary AgricuhMre Departmetrt, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal Madhya R-adesh. 2.1ndira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, tfarou^i Registrar Krisak Nagar, Raipur (MP). ^—- -^^ K:'l -^ Y' Ml' CWWT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA) fSB: Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. Aenihotri. J.) Present : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for tfae petitioners. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate, on behalf of Sfari Rainakant Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 QRALORDER (Passed on 04"' ofMarch, 2008) 1. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents. 2. On perosal ofthe pleadings and docimients appended thereto, it appears that, the petitioners were appoiirted on differept posts on daily wages basis. The petitioners have not filed copies of appointments order but copies of other relevant dociimentg have been filed, whereia it is indicated Ihat the petitioners were working as daily wagers. 3. The State Govenunent, 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 of&cers appointing daily wagers be held responsible and tfae payment made thereon may be recovered from the ofScere concemed. 4. The petitioners seek quashing ofthe order dated 27.01.2000 (Annexure P/l) and fiirther a direction to the respondents to regtilarize all the daily wages workers appointed since 1988. It is informed that at that point oftime Ifaere was a circular dated 31.12.88. As per eircular dated 25.09.98 wherein it was provided that all theenyloyees appointed on daily wages basis prior tQ 31.12.88 shall be considered for regularization. 5. Be that as it may, now with the passage oftime, lawhas changed. All fhe decisions directing regularization ofthe employees appointed, dehors the .constitution scheme of employment and not in accordance with law, impliedly stand overruled, m view ofthe decision ofthe Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Secretary, State of Kamataka aad Otfaers Vs. Uma Devi and others . The HonUe Supreme Court has laid down clear enunciation of law which was followed later oa ia various deeisions by the Supreme Court. Some are Accounts Officer (A&I) A.P.SRTC and otfaers Vs. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao and otfaera , Sunder Prasad Tiwari Vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Upadan Mmidi Panshad and others , Nagar Mahapalika (now Municipal Cprp.) Vs. State ofU.P. and others and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Man Sing}i . 6. In tfae case of Secretary, State ofKamataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (supra), Ifae Supreme Court observed as under: ^ ^ "45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual be regiilarized or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the pereon concemed 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 eitfaer temporary or casual in natiire, is not aware ofthe nature ofhis employment. He accepts the enyloyment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain- not at arm's length-since he niight have been searehing for some employmeat so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on tfaat 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 permaneirtly. By going so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not pennissible. "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or get engagement as a contractual or casiial worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by tfae relevant mles or procedure, he is aware ofthe consequences ofthe appointmerrt being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate e3q»ectation for being confinned in ~ the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by 1 following a proper procedure for selection and in cases coneemed, in consuttation with the Public Service Commission." 7. In tfae light ofthe above, the petitioners camiot claim any regularization or reinstatement in serviee on the basis of their appomtments which was temporary and not in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/-: Satish K. Agaihotri Judge