é? lllH“|ll|||||||||H||lH||l|||1| \ 1N mt. HIGH noun”; or mums méanvgn ’rx aa§ pu m5c.PE1IT10N ma. la; /199£ é v J 12w 9% , I mig‘w’ l3is trlct Guno, 3.?emeshwer Prasaé Jaiswal. \\\\xw W ..... ¢Q\4\<‘;\:\ ’ l@ » 0 A $ ed o $hn abeu't26 snarjupmsaxd years Jaiswal‘ a’ii w' “gy; Post (iffice Beltara Vic 23:111. Lustrict EllatpurJmP. / 6‘ wgpewnmw a ’ - l.The ctcxte of tmdhya Prudésh, Agriculture Department, ghopal ’ thmugh Secretctry t9 Gevernment, s Vers us, 2.Thc Directnr af kmndis, ' 3dhkar Eh wan, $hopal‘ £ 3.The secmtary > Krmi Upcg Mandi samiti, Ghhmdw m $1.} . g4. The becretary Krm'hi Upq Mandi gamiti, Ellaspur. S K 5. Krmh; The $ecretary Upaj Mgndi $am1ti, (mm, MJ" QCOLM\D aylrlow unmh am LLL 226 227 09 bm$ Txmnom w ¥ M ¥ A , m L [Lune Z ‘ J ‘ do *d _ I f A r . F m“: ¢ a HIGHW COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILABPUR single Bench: Hon’ble shri Satish K. Ayihohi, J. W. P. No. 142 of 1993 Petitioner : Hari Sing]: Dhakad Versus Respondcnts : The State ofMadhya Pradesh (now ChhattiSgarh) & others Shri Akhjlesh Dalpati, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the Iespondelif No. 1. None for the Iespondents No. 2 to 5. 0 R D E R ( 28th November, 2006) . Initially, this petition was filed on 11.1.1993 by three petitioners namely Pravin Kumar Gupta, Han‘ Singh Dhakad and Parmeshwar Prasad Jaiswal. Vide order dated 9.11.1998 the name of the petitioner No. 1 Shn' Pravin Kumar Gupta was permitted to be deleted. . At, the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No.3. Shri Parmeshwar Prasacl Jaiswal has already been regularized, thus his case, has become innuctuous. Thus, the petitioner No.3 does not want to press his case. . 1n view of the above, this order shall govern the case of the petitioner No.2 Hari Singh Dhakad, only. . The petitioner (Hari Singh Dhakad) was appointed as Sub Engineer on daily wage basis in the services of the Iespondent No. 5/ Sectetary, Kn‘shi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Guna (M.P.) on 18.7.1988 (Annexure A), initially for a pen'od of 89 days. Thereafter, his senlices was extended time to time but the petitioner was not considered for regularization W—%‘x V V V 4s despita the fact that some othtr similarly situated daily wagers have been mgulan'zcd. 5. The petitioner by this petition seeks Iegulan'zah'on with eEect from the mmal appointment as daily wage worker with all consequential beneots. x 6. It is admitted fact that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accoxtlance with law and dehors the constimtional scheme. The apintment of the petitioner was not thmngh the advern'semet or po n by inviting applications through any other means from all eligible candidates. It is well settled principle of law that the daily wagers, temporary or ad hoe employees have no right to the post seeking Iegularization and grant of regular pay scale, if their appointments were dehors the constitutional scheme or the rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of dia. In 7. By order dated 15. 1. 1993 passed by the High Court the petitior is ne continuing as daily wager. 8. The Constitutional bench of the Suplie Court in the case of en Weary, state of amataka & ohers Vs Umadevl (3) and K t . othersl, in para 44 as held as under:— h \’ “44. It would not bejust orpmper topass an order in exercise ofjun'sdiaion under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution or in exercise of power under Article 1 42 of e Constitution permitting those persons engaged, o be absorbed or to be made permanent based on their appointments or engzgements. Compleie justice would be juste according to law and though 1 would bi en o th Court to mould the ref th Court would not gram a relief whh would amount to perpetuatg an ilit legaly. 6. _ In the case of secretary, State of Karnataka and others (Supra) the Supreme Court has laid down ckar enunciation of law which was th t ic i *{ t is lie is ic in followed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Oourt. Som€ are Accounts omcer (AM M.sRTC and others vs. P. Chandra Salem Run and othcr32, Suriuder Pmad Tuned vs. UJ’. Rwa Krishi Utpadan ”midi Pariahad and others3, Nagar Mahapalika (now Municipal Corpn.) vs. state of U.P. «m1 othcro‘ and U.P. state Road Transport Corporation as. mu singhs. In the case of Secretwy, state of Kanmtaka and others (Supra), the Supreme Court observed as undm" :- “45. Whae directing that appointments temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the yeison unwanted has worked for some time and in some wses for a considerable length of time. It is mt as If the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain — not at arm’s length —— since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it woutd not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed shoutd be directed to be contirmed permanently. By doing so, it wit! be creating another mode of public appohtment which is «not permissible.” “4 7. When a yerson enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the'appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of Iegitimate elpectation for being corg‘irmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by follmoing a proper procedure for seleaion and in cases \ Thakur corwemed, Commission. ” in consultation with the Public Service For the reasons above-stated and as per the dicta lam down by the Supmme Court, the peu'tioncr is not emitled to permanent status or mgularization in the service and consequenh'al benems. This petjn'on is acooxdingly dismissed. No order as to costs. f,rz—L/.:'a Lhw§N‘- ”W sax— satish m Agnihom Judge (2006) 4 SOC 1 (2006) 7 SCC 488 (2006) 7 SCC 684 2006 AIR SCW 2497 2006 AIR SCW 51 59