IN THE HIBP EDURT OF MRDHYR PRADESH QT 3 ALFUR op NO. 2} /91 Eat math (Cm!) Egié§§gg§y % Ku.Maya Uishnoi QaUghter OF shri Karam chand Vishnai; aged abaut 26 years Resident of Ba;oda Bazar, Raipur (M.P.} ‘ “Will llllllll!1|lillll!!!lll :ed - VerSUS - Res g ondents ' $. 1. The State of .P? thruugh Secretary Department o? Panchayat and 5a31a1 walfare, wallabh Bhauan, Bhapal. 2. Diractar, Department a? Panchayat and Social welfare, Bld Secreta— r iate, Ehepala Deputy Directpr, Department of Panchayat and Sccial welfare, Raipur. Collector, Raipur. The Chiaf Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kasdal, Distt Ralpur. ‘ ! i \ PETITIDN Under Art 2?6/227 of the Lonstltutlsn of Indlz ! m M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR smGLE BgNcH : gON’gLE gR §An5H§. AGNIHOTRI. J. WRIT PETITIGN NO.323 OF 1993 Petitioner Ku. Maya Vishnoi VefSUS Resggndents Tm State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) and others Present : Mr. Anil Gulati, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate for respondenis No.1 to 4. None appears for respondent No.5. ORDER (Passed on 21a of NoVember, 2006) The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on temporary basis for a period of 89 days from 1-12—1988 to 31-5-1989 by ‘ order dated 29-1 1-1988 (Annexure P-1). Before expiry of tho period of appointment of me petitioner, it was extended upto 30-1 1-1 989 by order dated 28-4-1989 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, by order dated 30-11- 1989 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was removedfrom the service. The petitioner made a representation against her removal from the service on 14-6-1989 (Annexure P-5). On her representation, she was again appointed on daily wages from a period from 7-1 2-1989 to 4-2-1990 by order dated 6-1 2-1989 (Annexure P-6). Thereafter, vide order dated 1- 2-1 990 (Annexure P-7), it was ordered that the services of the petitioner would be dispensed with from the afternoon of 4-2-1990. When the ‘1 37-. matter was represented to the Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, the petiticner was again appointed on daiiy wages for a period of 89 days upto 1—1 1-1 992 by order dated 4-8-1992. Thereafter, vide order dated 31 -10—1w2 (Annexure P-1 2), the petitioner was again ,‘ removed from the service. in the present case, the petnioner seeks quashing of the impugned removal order dated 31 -1 0-1992 (Annexure P-1 2) and a Wtit/direotion to me respondents to reguiartse servioes of the petitioner with effect from 1-1 2-1 988. 2. it is admitted case of the petiaoner that the appoinhnentof the petitioner was not in accordance with the consdtutionai scheme of {r empioyment or under any ruies framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India inviting appiioations from all the eligible candidates. 3. The Supreme Court, while dealing with he matters of daily wagers, ad hoc employees, probationers, temporary or contractual i ‘ employees, not appointed following the procedure laid down under Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of lndia, held that such appointments dehors the constitutional scheme amounu' to back door i entry in the matter of public employment and the employees have no right to the post. 4. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Kernetaka and others vs. Umedevi (3) and others‘ has laid down clear onunciation of law which was followed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court. Some are Accounts Oficer (A&I) A.P.SRTC and others vs. P. Chandra Sekmra Rec and omersz, / Surinder Prasad Tiwan‘ vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and othersa, Hagar Mahapaiika (now Municipal Corpn.) vs. State of U.P. and others‘ and u.P. state Road rmnsport Corporation vs. Man Singhs. In me case of Sewetary, State of Kamataka and ethers vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra), the Supreme Court observed as under :- “45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised ur 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 empioyment. He acoopB the employment with open eyes. it may be true that he is not in a position to bargain — not at arm’s iength - since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his iiveiihood and acoepts whatever he gets. But on that ground aione, it wouid not be appropriate to iettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the View that a person who has temporan'ly or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it'iwill be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible." “47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary. casual or contractual in nature. Suoh a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being conm'med in the post when an appointment t0 the pm could be made only by fouowing a proper proceduae fat selection and in cases concemed, in oonsulmtion with the Public Service Commission.” :‘4 6. For the reasons above-stated and as per the~ dicta laid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioner is not emitted to absorption/permanent status or reguiarisation in the service. 7. This petition is accordingly dismissed‘ No order as to costs. 5d/- sATiSH K. AGMHOTRI Judge ”iii 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2006) 7 SCC 488 3 (2006) Y SOC 684 4 2006 AIR SCW 2497 5 2008 NR SCW 5159