,^ f ^" Lf-D mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR WRTT PETmON No. 4388 of2004 PETmONER : Bhagwat Das Vaishnav aged 39 years S/o Lakhan Das Vaishaav R/o Hardikak (Tona) Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) YERSUS RE8PONDENTS : 1. Jan Parishad, Bilaspur,Throu^i President. 2. Director, Panchayat and 8©cial Welfare, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Joint Director, Paiichayat aiid Social Welfare, Co$npositeBuildmg,Bilaspur. 4. State of Chhattissarh, throu^h Seeretary, Deptt. ofPanchayat and Sociat Welfare, State ofC.G. D.K.8. Bhavan, Raipur. 5. The Coltector, District Bilaspur. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satisli K. Asariliotri. J. Present: Shri H.V.Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Paiiel Lawyer fortbe State/respondents 2 to 5, ORALORDER (Passed on 10ffi dayof September,2008) 1. The petitioner was appointed as Watchman at Vridhashram, Khaparganj, Bilaspur, on monthly payment of Rs. 1200/- by order dated 11.09.1998 (Annexure P/l). Thereafter, the petitioner continued to work till 01.04.2004. The petitioner was orally removed from his engagement. 2. Leamed coumel appearing for Ifae petitioner submits that smce the petitioner has been contmuing since 11.09.1998, fhe petitioner caamot be removed from services without affording mi opportuntty ofhearing. 3. The law on fhis point is clear fhat ifthe appomtaient is notin accordance with law and dehors the constitutional scheme of empto^nent, the ^^f-^, 6. ^l -2- petitioner has no right to the post as appointment is not legal. The Constitution Bench, in the matter of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others which was fQllowed subsequently in a catena of decisions, has held tfaat the service of the daily wager, contract, temporary employee can be discontmued at any point of time. if appointnients are not in accordaiice wifh law. On pemsal of the appointment order, it appears that tfie petitioner has not been appointed after inviting applications from the similarly situated candidates through selection process. Thus, the apiwmtment cannot be held as in accordance with the constitutional scheme ofemployment as tbe same provides for equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates. If the appomfoient itselfis not in accordance wifh law, the employee has no right to continue or reappointment. Further, tiie contention ofthe leamed counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ou^it to have been given an opportumty ofhearing before his termination, is misplaced and is rejected. Applying tiie well settled principles of law as stated above to the tacts of the case, the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement in service on the basis of his appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and dehors fhe constitutional scheme ofemployment. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order e^to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Anut 1(2006)4SCC1