IN THE HIGH COURT OP' CHHATriSGARH : BILASPUR WntPetition(SLNo._1014of2Q05 AppUcants 1. 2. 3. Dwanka Prasad Yadava, aged 29 years, S/o, Shri S. P. Yadava, Ex'Lab Atteudant, Scieuce CoUege, Raipur, Resident of Gudhiyari - Raipur, Tahsil aad Distt. Raipixr, M.R Samuel Lal, aged 25 years, S/o Shri IniniaB.ual Lal, Ex-Lab. Attendaiit, Goveranieni Science CoUege, Raipur, Kesident.of Kohmipuram, Kaipur, Tah-sil and District Raipur, M.P. Chaadulal Sahu, aged 28 years, S/o, Shri Udayram Saliu, Ex-Lab. Attendaat, Govermiient Science CoUege, Raipur, Resident of Khusalpur, Raipur, Talisil aixd District Raipur (M.P.) Holeshwar Rao Inglcy, aged 27 years, Sou of Shri Madhorao lugley, Ex-Watchinaii, GoveniiD.nt Science CoUege, Raipur, Tahsil aiid District Raipur (M.P.) Shri Ramankuniar Shnvastava, P'ormerly Prmcipal, Goveranieut Science College, Raipur, At present Principal, Digvijay CoUege, Rajiiaadgaon, Principal, Goveranient Science CoUege, Raipiir (M.P.). Goverament of Madhya Pradesh, Throiigh : Secretary, Higher Educationa, BhopalfM.P.). SunU Kumar Shrivastava, Aged 28 years, S/o J.N.Shrivastava, Lab, Attendaat, Goveniment Scence CoUege, Raipur, Resident of Janta Colony, Gudhiyari - Raipur, Talisil & Distt. Raipur (M.P.) QR1GlNALAPPUCAT10N_N0^3^^^ MADHYAPRADESHADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL.JABALPUR. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmliotii J.) Non- applicaats Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. Shxi Raaikuiiiar Tiwari, Advocate for fhe petitiouers. Ms Sunita Jaiii, Paael Lawyer for fhe State. O R D E R (Passed on this 8th Day ofAugust, 2008) 1. The petitioners had filed fhis petition before the Madhya Pradesh Admiuistt'ative Tribuual, Jabalpur. After dissolutlon of the Tribunal, fhis case was received on toraasfer. ^E^ 2. The petitioners, by fhis petition, seeks quashiag of fhe order dated 28.6.1993 (Annexure A/l), whereby the services of fhe petitiouers, who were appointed ou ad-hoc basis, were terminated w.e.f. 30th June, 1993. 3. The facts, in nutshell, are that fhe petitiouers were appoiated on ad-hoc basis for a period of 30 days vide order dated 30.12.1991. They joiaed their services ou 1.1.1992. After break of a day tiiey were agam appointed for a period of 28 days w.e.f, 1.2.1992. In fhe same inanner, by giviag break of one or tevo days, fhe petitioners had been contiaumg in ser^ice till 30th June, 1993, when their ser^ices were terniiaated vide nnpugned order dated 28.6.1993 (Annexure A/1.). 4. I have heai'd learaed counsel appeadug for the pardes, penised fhe pleadiags aad docuiaents appended ftiereto. It is adniitted that fhe petidoners were iaitially appouited for a period of one nionfh on ad-hoc basis, dehors the constitutional schem.e of public eniployinent. Thus, fhe petitioners have no right to fhe posts. 5. The Suprenie Court, m fhe matter of Becretary, State of Karsiataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3|| asid otfaers1 obsen/red ia para 47 as under: "47. When a person enters a teiuporary einployment or gets eugagement as a contractual or casual worker aad fhe engagenient is not based on a proper selection as recognized by ftie relevaiit niles or procedure, he is aware of fhe consequences of fhe appoiataient beuig teniporary, casual or contractual ia nature, Such a person cannot invoke tiie theory of legitunate expectation fbr beitig confirmed ia fhe post when an appoiataient to the post could be raade only by fbllowin.g a proper procedure for selection aad ui cases conceraed, ia consultation witli tlie PubMc Service Coninussion. Therefore, the theory of legitmiate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by teniporary, contractual or casual employees, It caiinot also be held tfiat the State has held out aiiy promise while 1 2006 (4) SCC 1 engagiag these persons eitlier to coiitio.ue fheiii where fh.ey are or to niake tliem. peroiaaent. Phe State caanot constitutionaUy niake such a proinise. It is also obvious that fh.e flieory cannot be nivokcd to scek a positive reMefof being inade permaiieut ia tiie post/? 1^-. 6. ^ "ll 7. 8. Thakiir /l'he natui'e of appoia.tocaent of the petitioners was not in. accordaace with Rules and as such Uie petitioners do not acquire aay right to fhe post. It is well setfled prmciple of law by a catena of decisions that fhe eniployee appoiated dehors fhe constitutional scheBie of eiaploynient aad not ia accordaace wifti law, has no right to continuation, renistatenient or regularization ia service, This is also not a case where llie petitioners have estabUshed fliat fhey were legatly appoiated. 'I'he conteution that siace otib.er sirnilaiiy situated persons have been recomrneuded, fhere was discriniiaation or arbitt'ariuess on fhe part of the respondents, is wifhout aiiy basis as no raaterial has been produced iii support of fhis contention. ft is clearly established that the appoiataient of fhe petitioners was not iti accordauce witfi law, Applyitig tlie well setfled priiiciples of law, as stated above, to tiie facts of tiie present case, whereio. tiie petitioners were appoiiited on ad-hoc basis for a period of one niontli or so, aad fheir seivices were termtiiated vide impugued order, tliey have uo right to fhe post. The petition is accordtagly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge