HICxH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS ^ WRIT_PE'nTION_(Sl, No. 465 of2008 : -1, Ramesh Kimiar Nayafc. Sesiior Tr^toient. Supends<x, ^on of Galab Siiigh Nayak, aged afoo'irt 30 years, residence of village Jhaiiakpur, Post Baraitikela,: District Raigarh, CliliattiBgarli. 2» Basari: Kymar CfaoBdharv, Semor T.B.Lal? Supes-visor, soii ofBabuIal OioycSiary, aged abaat 37 years, resideiice of Be.iadii.la, Devlash C^howk, Raigarli, District Raigaiii, Cliliattisgaiii. 3, Krishna Kumar ChoBdhary, Semor T.B, l^b Sapervigqr, sosi ofSliri Vatiis CiMxidlis.^y, aged alxMt 35 vears, residence .of viilaRe.. ICiimhari,,,-. Post Bammkela, Di^lrict Raigarh. Chfaattiagails. 4, Dalesh Patel, Lab Technioiaii, sosi. . of Shri "Vidlwadhar Patel, aged abo'irt 28 yeam, resMex^e of •village Mauhadoda, post Saraiigarh, Di^trict Raigarii, Chliattisgarii,, 5,. Ajw Toppo, Senior T.B.Lab Siipen/iaor, soii of Atoia Rain Toppo, afooiit 39 years, resideince of BIock. Colony, Cyfaar^ioda, District Raigarh: ^7ERS?JS !„ Stete of'. ChhattisgaA, Throv^i Joitit Director, Saiicliaiialaya, (Tabercyiosis) Healih :"Servic.es, Raipyr, Chliattisgarii. 2, Collect<Mt/Chairmaii Diafcrict Tubei'ciiloais , Carti'ol Society, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. District Tuberciilosis . Coiitrol Officer/SeCTetary, District Tiiberculosis Control Sodety^ ,Raiga.rh, CMiattisgarlz . WRIT PETITION UNDER 8ECTION 226 OF THE CONS'r.niH'ION OF INDIA SBiliwi'bI^^bitSatish K. Agirihotri, J. Preseiit: Shri CJ'ayaitt K« Rao, .Axtvocate for th,e petitioxiers, Siiri Satisli Giipta, Deputy Govemmert Advocate fbr tlxe State. ORALORDER (Passed on 23rt! day of Ja.auaf>', 2008) 1, The petitioiiers were appointed on 30.08.2006 011 coiitract basis as Senior Treatmexit Supereisor, Seiiior I\B- Lab Supendsor an.d .L^ib Technicians, for a period ofone year from 06.09.2006 to 05.09.2007 by the District Tuberculosis Control Ofiicer, Raigarh, Adm.ittedly, the. services ofthe petitioners came to an end on 05,09,2007. However, witho'ut req)pomtmg them, accordmg to •th.e couesel for- ftQ petitioners, the petitioiiers contmued to work OB respective posts» The respondent No. 3, ^ubseqiiently, by wder dated 040l«2008. appomted some other persons on coiitract basis for a period ol one year» 2. 3. The naiiie of the petitioners did not piace m the. order dated 04.01.2008. Being aggrieved, the petitiotie.rs have this petiiioii seekmg fbilowijigTeliefs: "7.1 That t'his Hon'ble High Court may kmdly be io direct 'the .respaadeiit autlMMitieB to prodiice tlw entire records pertammg the present petitio^ : . . ...- 7.2 That the Hon'ble High Coiirt m.ay kmdfy be pleased to aii ordef/writ/directioii 'isi fh^^ M.tee,;:'of majidamiis fhereby quashiiig ttic order 4.01*08, wiiereby the petitioiiers are deprived .:from recoBsidoratjxMi and re-appointment, m the ends ofjugtice. 73 That Hon'bte Court may kmdly be pleased to direct tiie respoiidenl xio. 3 to appoii'xt 'the petitioiiers 011 te lield :i;: by fhem by takiag decision 011 Miitability of'tbe petitioiwrs::" :for extetisioii of services ofthe pefcitioiiers. fbr terai' of one year« 7A ThMt the Hoii'ble Court may kmdly be pleased to direct fee respoiidetit ao, 3 to coiisider the caiididatiire ^ of 'tlie petitioiiers oo. 'tJie basis of tieir merits and exp^-iaw.e and tiie :lltness certificale issBed by the respoii&iit tM). ,3:, m :the ends ofjustice. 7,5 That fhe Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to .grart any o&er reliefas it m^y deems :iit. ajJproiM'iate.". The- prayer ofthe petitioners camiot be for a simple reasoii of-the petitionCTB was onty :fbr a period ctf 0110 year cam.e'to aii end 011 05.09.2007. Siibmissio?]. ofthe ooBiisel that during this period.they petitioners have been .gra?ited appreciat.kxti certificates will not be ofaiw to fte petitioeers as tli.e satisiactory -work does not coiifer ariy riglit on. 'fce petitioiiers .bey<Mi.d •ftie of the appomtmenfc order. Evm otherwise, ttie appoiMmaol'. of the petitioners was not m accordance with 'the pfovisioas of law,, The petitKMiers prayer as al^o've camiot be m view af fee settled pri.iici.pl.es of law that aii employee 011 contract basis does not have a?iy right if the appomtmen.t is the provisions of law, In view offhe fbregoiBg, the petition dismissed, Biimmarily. Aipj.t Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge