TW ;'L'>.:;?::'''?l'-:i''®'£?s^i"; P''3^es«satfH)as ^ II. THB_HI^_COUM__01LjLI.P. JLTDIGATUR^_y;_JABAEPTO T—~ ^ iffiIT PE'riTIOCT TO. A—1-1-/2000 SJL •.^~ <"•!); EBSPCOTSBI-ISS •geadra Singh S/o_Sbri Dadi Sin^i aged abo-at 54» years, &/o s- Village Dhaadiaukux ( Sangi-Sola ) post Hauria Police-Station Beohari, Distt Sbahdol, Madhya Pradesa. ,rEB S U S ;1/ The State of I'ladbya Pradesh 'rhroug?'t the Secretary Agricult'ure Deiartment Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. :2/ 'l'be Managiag Sireotor M.P. State Seed aad 2'arm Developmenl; Gorporation Bia.opal, Madhya Pradesh., 3/8- Arreara Coloney. Bhopal ;5/ 'Sa.e Seginal Manager M.p, Sta-te Seed and Farm Developnenl: Gorporation, Reffinal Office, Nehru.-H'ager Boad, Bilaspur, H.P. ^ n.itt !N l!l»: i -< WRIT PETSTION N0. 6383 OF 2000 Nagendra Singh State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ Pet'tion under Arttote 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. . Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panei Lawyer for the State. Ms. Tripti Dewangan, Advocate for the respondent No.3 & 4. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on 7th day of March, 2011) By this petition, the' petitionerseeks to challenge the legaiity and validity of the order dated 5.8.2000 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petltioner was terminated from his services. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and regularize himw.e.f. 1.12.1992. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as dailywages employee on 1.12.1992 and therefrom, he had been working in the respondent department with sincerity and honestty. The petitioner is fuliy qualified for t'ne post of Clerk. The respondent authorities appointed the respondent No.5 on 4.9.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to work in the department. However, ail of a sudden, by order dated 5.8.2000, the services of the petitioner was terminated. According to the petitioner,. before passing the impugned order, proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. The impugned action of the respondent authorities isagainst the wtetlj settied principles of iaw. The impugned termination orderwas passed on .ihe ground that appo'ntment of the petitioner as datly wager vyas irreguiar. Therefore, on the basis of recommenddtiQn of jttie 2 Screening Committee, he was removed from service with one month's ' aavance salary, . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondenfe are acting in a discriminatory manner because they had removed the petitioner only and permitted the respondent No.5 to continue in theservice. The action taken bythe respondent authoritles is c!ear violation of the provisions as enshrined under Article 14 & 16 ofthe Constitution of India. Thus, this petition. i have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the Dleadi.nas and the documents aDDended thereto. Se that.as rt may, a temporary, ad hoc emptoyee/daily wager cannot claim regularization, continua.nce br reinstatement in sen/ice on the basis of appointment, which was temporary a.nd not in accordance wlth !aw and the same was cfe hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd , Offidal Liquidator v. Dayanand and others" and State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singb and Others4}. With regard to regularisation of the employees working .on temporary basis, the Supreme Court in Umadevi (supTa), obsen/ed as under: "Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equaiity in pubtic employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a eourt would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a vioiation of Article 14 or in orderina the overlooking of the need to 1(2006)4SCC1 2 2007 (1) SCC 408 3(2008)10SCC1 G compiy with the requirements of Article 14 read with Articie 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for pubiic empioyment, this Court whsle iayin; down the law, has necessarily to hoid t'nat uniess the appointment is in 'terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, thesame wouid not confer any right on the appointee." The above ratio. laid down by the Supreme Court has been reiterated by this Court in Ashwani Kurpar Verma & Others v. State of Chhattlgarh & Anothe^ and Somendra Pratap Singh v. The State of M.P. & others Against the order passed in Somendra Pratap. Singh (supra), the petitioner therein preferred a writ appeal being W.A. (PR) No. 2077/2008, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29.04.2008 affirming the order passed by the Single Bench. Thereagainst, the matter was taken upto the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.(C) No, 27190/2008 (.Somendre Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarts Si Others), which y/as also dismissed by the Supreme Court affirming the view taken by this Court, vide its Qrder dated 23-3-2009, This Court in Sanjay Patil v: State of Chhattisgarh & Anothsr' while deaiing v.'ith similar issue obsen.'ed that "if the State Government has regufarized some of the daily wagers, not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, this Court cannot issue a positive direction to legalise the illegal appointment on the ground that certain illegal appointments have bteen lega.ttzed/regularized bythe employer. 5 WP (S) No.1743 of 2009 ciecided on 28-4-2009 6 W. P. (S) No. 1347 6f 2005 decided on 26-2-2008 7 WP (S) No.5845 of 2Q09 decided on 9-10-2008 ^.s-... '"%. ^ •:S.';;)?'' '3 ^ '"•:jy ..L^,.^^..¥???•- asnot; lAu 10. In this context, the Supreme Court, in Ashok Kumar St v. Union oftndia, observed as under: "34. It is not a case where appointment was irregular. If an appointment is irreguiar, the same can be regularised. The Court may not take serious note of an irregularity within the meaning of the provssions of the Act. But if an appointment is illegal, it is non est jn the eye of law, which renders the appointment to be a nullity. " 11. Further, in State of Punjab & another v. Surjit Others , the Supreme Court reaffirmsd the above ratio in the ilowing terms: "39. We wduid, howeyer, before psrting make an observation that the submission of the learned counse! that only because some juniors have got the benefit, the saniie by itself cannot be a ground for extending the same benefit to the respondents herein. It is now well known that the equality ciause contained in Article 14 shouid be invoked only wherethe parties are similarly situated andwhere orders passed in theirfavourare legal and nQtjlJegal. It hasa positive concept." 12. In view of foregoing, for the reasons stated hereinabove and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case wherein the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary and on daily wages basis, he is not entitled to any reiief. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 5.8.2000, is just, proper and does not warrantany interferenceof this Court. ; 14. -!n the resuit, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto Sdf- Satishk.Agoihotri Judge