^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fSlNo. r»>o8si> OF2010. PETITIONER Ajay^ Kumar'Kesharwani, / ; S/o. Shri Madan Lal K.esharwani, aged about 37 years, Assisfant Programmer, Forest Qffice, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS •^:\v ^-•^ -«^** ?te's*."...- Si^"'" ^w" ;1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through : The Secretaiy, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) y:': .'••:..:.::.': • ':',: :"-'1.1.1:; ,.' 2. ehiefGonseryatorofForest, Aranyan;Bhawan, Ratpui', District Raipur tC.G.) / ' 'f. • • ;'. . - : • , . 3. ConseryatQr of Forest, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) ^' ' ::. ' ; • .• • : 4. Divisidnal Forest Officer, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) WRITPETITIONHNDERSARTICLE2260FTHE CONSTlTUnONOFlNDlA l^ The petifioner named ^ove begs to submit as underi- ^i^^ \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER WRTT PETITION CS) No; 3063 of2010 Ajay Kumar Kesharwam. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WEITPETITtON UNDER ARTICLE 226.0F THE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA SB: Hdn'ble Shri Satish K. Asauhotri. J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advoeate forthe petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 03rd day ofMay, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to tiie order dated 11.6.2010 (Amiexure P/l), whereby fhe services offlie petitioner has been dispensed with on the ground of 'no longer required'. 2. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was appointed against regular pay scale, therefore, appointment ofthe petitioner was regular and in accordance with law, as the petitipner has made anapplicationon 16.12.2008 for appointment oa the post of Programmer. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh, aiter having accepted the application, directed the Conservator ofForest, Kanker, to a.ppoint the petitioner on the post ofProgrannner against regular pay seale. Thus, the appointment ofthe petitioner is legal and the impugned order cannot be passedwithout afEbrding an opportunity ofhearin{ or holding an enquiry against the petitioner. 3. Shri Roy, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that the appointment ofthe petitioner was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment as the petitioner was working on contraet basis onthe post ofData Entry Operator. Qn the basis ofhis application, he was appointed against the regular pay scale of Programmer, without proper seleetion process i.e. by issuing advertisement or publication ofthe notice invitine applications from other similarlv V^WWSi 3^... i. 's s 7. situated candidates. Even ofherwise, under the provisions of law also, on the basis ofasimple application, no appomtment can be held legal if it is not through proper selection. Thus, tfae appointment itself being illegal could not have been continued for ever. Thus, the impugned order removing services ofthe petitioner on the ground of 'no longer required' is just and proper and in aecordancewith law. — Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perusm^ the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the appointment ofthe petitioner was not on the basis ofproper selection inviting applieation from all the similarly qualified candidates or throughpublication ofnotice, or otherwise. It is well settled principle oflawthat ifthe appointment has been made even against a regular pay scale without following the> constitutional scheme of employment as enshrined under Article 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of India, tlie appointment is illegal. There is no dispute that there was any invitation or advertisement iaforming other sunilarly qualified candidates for participation and selection in the selection process. The appointment of the petitioner was made on a simple application on the direction offhe Pruieipal Chief Conservator of Forest. Thus, the appointment caiaot be held as legal. It is trite law that illegal appointment cannot continue. Thus, the order impugned removing fhe services of the petitioner on the ground of no longer required' is just, proper and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the writpetition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge I 'i