^ IN THE HIGH CpURT OF (;HHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. •;?-o^ <J / 2003 PETITIONER 1; Piishiraj Singh s/o Shri Murli Singh / aged37 years» Lab AssistQnt^Regional Office, Chhattisgarh Environmsnt Conservation Board^ Korba, r/© EWS 53, Naharana Pratap Nasar, Korba (C.6.). V8< RESPQNDENTa /' ...<i^ ?^T" ^ ^ Wr^^£^-''' ../>^y" ^y 'T^^ ^ ./y' ^ ^.y . ^ "~':^^, /y\.^t ^'^ ^^.^^. y <^s"'*^3f^ '^ // ^ ^^s s^:^ ^' '^ y*/e^\..^ || ' 1^.^ ^^|.j ll /^y^$)^^ 1X<%>1.^ ^sisy "^i^@l^-^ |^J-» Chhattisgarh Environinsnt Conservation Boardythrough ita / Secretary, Nanak Bhawan^ Near Central Bank,Civil Lines.Raipurt C6). 2^-Chairmars, Chhattisgarh Environmen1' ConsBrvQtion Beard, Raipur ( C6) . Chief Engineery Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation B©ard, Haipur (C6), F. Regional Officer, Regional Office, Chhattisgaxh Environment Conservation Board» HIfi-21,22, Maharana Prstap Nagar(Extension), Korba (CG), F5, Secretary, Department of Environ- ment, 6©vt.ofChhattisgarh, D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur (C£). 6^-The Collector, Korba^ district Korlaa ( CG), 7. M.P.Pollution Control Baard thxoygh its Membex Secretary^E«5, Paryavaran Parisar,/Arera Colony, Bhopal (M.P.),. ^-•1 ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT INTHE NATURE OF MANDAMUS,CERTIORARY,ETC., DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS ^.T- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR 8in®leBench: Hon^ble Shri Satish K. A@iihotri, J. WRIT PBTITION N0. 2003 OF 2003 Petitioner Rishiraj 8ingh Versiis Chhattis^arh B^viroameat C^onser^atiosa Board Ss others O liDER (Dated A^August, 2006} Post for 1-8-2006 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge H1GH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILA8PUR Single Bench: Hon*ble Shri Satish K. AgnUiotri, J. Petitiouer Respondente WmT PBTITION N0. 3003 OF 2003 Rishiraj Siagh Versus Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & ofliers Shri Raabir Siagh Marhas, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, couasel for the respondente No. 1 to 4. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy AdvcK?ate General for fhe Steite/ respondents No.5 & 6. ORDBR (Dated ^?^ August, 2006) 1. The petitioner was uiitially appointed by order dated 7-7-1994 (AnBexure-P/ 1) for a period of 30 days at Collector^s rate, not in accordance with law. Thereafter fhe appoiatxiient of fhe petitioner continued by varioiis orders as daily wager. On 21- 4-1997 (Annexure-P/3) one inore appoinLtment order was passed appomiting the petitioner on contoract basis for a period of 30 days. The petjtioner's ser^ices was thereafter discontinxied in the raonth ofJune, 2002. 2, The petitioner has fUed this petition seekiag a dircction that he be taken back in service aiid the respondents be directed to regularize his seryices. 3. On penisal of the papers, it is found that the appointinent of the petitioner was not ia accoriance with law aiid as per constitiitional schenie of eiiiployinent. There. was no invitation to the piibUc for makiiig application for appointaaent to the said post. Tbe petitioner was chosen without any >> ^ea? ~<r Gowii advertisement or without calling his name. froiii tbe Einployment Exchange, It is, fhercfore, held that fhe appomtment of the petitioBer on daily wages first and tbereafifcer on contract basis is ia violation ofthe constitutional scheiiie enshrined iinder Ai-ticles 14 & 16 of the C^nstitLition oflndia and tbe saine is void ia law. A constitxitional bench of the Hon^ble Supreme. Court in the case ofSecretary, State ofKaraataka & otheys Vs« Umade^d (3) and others {(^)06) 4 8CC 1} clearly held that absorption, regulai'ization, or permanent contiiiuaace of teiaporary, coDtractiisl, casiial, daily-wage or ad hoc eniployees appointed/reciTiited and continiied for long ia public eiiiployment dehors the constitutional scheine of piibUc eraployment crcate auother mode ofpublic employiiieat which is not permissible. In the present case, the petitioner is daily wager aad is not aptpointed in accordance with law and as {^r the constitiitional scheme of the public einployment. Thus, he does not acquire aiiy right for regiiikidzation. For the reasons stated above, fhis petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge »