P : iN THL HIGH COURT OF M . VP No. Wés /1993 J/% 4; PETITIONER : Prakash Kumar Tiwarl, S/o Shri Moleram Tiwari,working as Daily-Skilled Labourer in Watch & Ward, Panabaras Pariyojna Mandal m’xadgaon Rang, District— Rajnandgaon. —Versus‘- RESPONDENTS 1. state of M.P. through Secretary § Deptt. oi: Forest, Ballabh Bhawan Bhopal. 2. Managing Director, M.P Rajya—Van Vlkas-Nlgam, Pandhanan 5th Floor, Malviya—Nagar, Bhopal. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 CONSTITUTION OF I N D I A $ WE&§‘ nwmw um“ ‘ r ; 3. A1 J : 1. The petiu'oner was appointnd as daily wage skiiled Weaker by the respondent No.2 in February, 1980. The petitioner was not considered for mgularization despite the hot that some other similarly situated daily wagers have been regularized. 2. The petitioner by this petition seeks regularization with eEect h‘om the initial appointment as daily wage worker. The petition is wgue and lack relevant materials so asto indicate whether-the petitioner has been continuing as daily wager till date. 3. Acconiing to the petitioner the pen‘tioner has made representation on 26.2. 1992 (Annexuxe P/4) to the respondent No.2 for Iegnlan'eing his services. it appears that he could not be negularized. No reasons have been stated, either in the pleadings or in submissions maie by learned counsel for the peu‘tioner. It is admitted fact that the appointment of the petitioner was notrin acooxdance with law and. dehors the constituu'onal scheme. The appointment of the petitioner was not through the advertisement or by inviting any application ' thmugh any other means hom all eligible candidates. It is well settled principle of law that the daily wagers, temporary or ad hoe employees Shxi A.. K. Pandey, Advocam for the pct'tinner. Shri Anm Sac, Govt. Advocate far the respondents. 0 R D E R ( 21“ November, 2006) 3’\ ‘ ’ ‘w ; have no right to the post seeking regulan'zation and grant of regular pay scale, if their appoiniments were dehors the constitutional scheme or the rules made under the pmviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. By oxder dated 15. 1. 1993 passed by the High Court the petin'oner is continuing as daily wager. 5. The Constitutional bench of the Supteme Court in the case of Sectetary, State of Katnstaka a others Vs. Umadevi (31 and othersl, in pam 44 has held as under:- ‘44. . It would not bejust orproper to pass an order in exercise ofjuris¢b1ion under Article 226 0r 32 of the Constitution or in exerdse of power under Article 142 of the Constitution permitting those persons engaged, to he absorbed or to be made permanent, based on their appointments or engagements. Complete justice would be justice accordirg to law and though it would be open to this Court to mould the refiej; this Court won” not grant a relief which would amount to perpetuming a illegality.’ in the case of Sea-atom, State of tornatako and other: (Supra) Keg, the Supreme Court has laid down clear ennnciation of law whit-h was followed later on ’in various decisions by the Supieme Court Some are Accounts Ommrvm A.P.8RTC «ml other: vs. r. Chandra Sekhm Rao and othcré‘, Surtuder Prasad Tlwarl vs. UJ. Rqya Krista Utpadan Mandi Parish“ om! “new, Nagar Mallapawca (now Municipal Coma.) vs. State of U.P. and others‘ and ILP. state Road Transport Corporation vs. Man Single. 7. In the case of Secretary, state #Kamataka and others (Supra), the Supreme Court obselved as under :- “45. While direaing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fad that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some casesfor a considerawe length of . n time. It is n01 as if the pemon who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is ‘not aware of the nature of his enmlayment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true thai he is not in a position to bargain — not at arm’s length -— since he mighi have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional sdteme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued pemmntly. By doing so, it will be aeating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. " ”‘47. When a person enters a temporary employment or ge$ engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper seleaion as recognised by the relevant rules or procewre, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, wsual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission " 8. For the reasons above-stated and as per the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entitled to absorption/permanent status or mgularization in the sewice and regular pay scale. This petin‘on is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotd Judge (2006) 4 scc 1 (2006) 7 soc 488 (2008) 7 scc 684 2006 AIR scw 2497 2006 AIR SCW 5159 (”w#lod Thakur