'FCHI s. 1 °os=r- ^-i^ Eetitionsr .x' ^titi 'G^.a ii N^AT?l^^f ^fl^ll ..ri^^-?_J-®.Ml__-^^^ Tokahvar, Son of Shri 41 years, Resident of Pakhanjur Colony, Pakhanjur, District North bastar, Kanker (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh , Through: and Famliy Welfare, D.K.5. ihawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Chief Medica! and health Officer, Kanker, District North bastar Kanker (C.G.) The Clvt! Surgeon cum Hospital superintendent, kanker, District North Kanker (C.G.) !n-Charge Medical Officer, Primary Heaith Centre Kapsi, districl North rcGV OA'rit Petition under Articfe 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) ;nch:__ HoB'b!eJystjce_Sat!sh K. Aanihotri Present : Shri P.P. Sahu, counse! for the petitloner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Govt. Advocate fortS-is Stats/ respondents. •th Learned counse! appearing for the petitloner submits that the on contract as Safai karmchari in the Department vide order 29.09.2003, initiaHy for a of tv/o years. Thereafter, sen'ice of the continued from time to time. Lastly, by 16.11.2005 (Annexure P-10), the appointment of the petitloner on cotract was for a period of one year that came to an end on 15.11.2005. ;— '- ~7SKJ!Mi..S»-j-^' '. Learned appearing for the petitioner further submits ^'H'sf' ^'K-fiS *''i&Sfl»,'~tinrf;?£i?sf!S/-SiE^'t^^fEfcs^? ^SS','^ •£?*!Si •:S»t.?°W).i?^^I?1i'^ 0-"i^ iEi<si iu'^ F^syyT'yeni5/i3uu'ivifEi?,?s df^ siiit ^PIX^EHII rifis flt;! flaaS Ilul cquired any rightfa on comract oasis. 3. Be that as it may, it is wei! principal of law that an apposntment on contract is not a appoJntment as the same is done dehors the constltutiona! scheme of emptoyment and not in with the rules framed under ArSicie 309 of the Constltution of indla. Thus, the petition< the post. 4. However, in the of the case, the respondentsi'authorities are to consider the appiication of the petstioner for ippointment on conSract with other eligible candidates. There is no merit in the case. 5. In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge