Lu A [‘Mr #3? 3 W IN THE M.P. ADMINISTRATNE TRIBUNAL.JABALPUR, M.P. i original Applicaaon No. %§ of 1 999. u W? Applicants : Kumari shanti Dubey. D/o shri.a.s.Dubey. Aged about 30 years, 2. Raji Koshi, s/o K.K.Kosh1 Aged about 32 years, Occupation: Both Daily Wages employee and posted at the ofzEice o£ Range officer Range Circle Bilaspur dist. Bilaspur. Vet $Ll$ e Respondents The state of M.P. through its Secretary, Forest Department Vallabh Bhavan. Bhopal, M.Po The chief Conservator cf Forest M.P. Bhopal. The Divisional Forest 0fticer Bilaspur Forest Divn. Bilaspur.M.P. a,“ u n The Range officer, Forest Range Circle Bilaspur distw‘ §ilaspur, M.P. APIDLICATION vNDER SECTION 19,9? _THE ADMINIsTRATm TRIBUNALS ACT, 1935. i ; Particulars cg the applicants: w As given above in the cause title. Particulars of the Respondents: As given abcve in the cause title. COntd. e 2 O Petitioners Respondents None for the petitioners. Smt. Anju Abuja, Depuiy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORDER “K (pissed on this 16'“ day oIJanuary, 2007) 1. The petitioners have med this petition for quashing of the orders reby the sewices of the them. availability of work for dated 31.8. 1999 (Annexure A/ 1 and A/2) who petitioners were put to an end in absence of later on in various decisions by the . S amateur which was mowed upmme (mice:- $&q A.P.SRTC and others us. P; and othersQ, Swinder Prasad Tiwari Court, viz. Aécounts Chandra Sakhara Ran as. U.P. Rwya Krishi m Thakur Utpadau Mandi Parishad am! other-33, Nagar Mahapalika (now Municipal Corpn.) vs. state of (LP. and others" and ,U.P. state Road Transpw't Corporation us. Man Singh5, daily rated, temporary or ad hoc appointees have no right to the post as their appointment was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of the appointment and not in accordance with any Rules, Regulations, as framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Consu‘tution of India. '. 4. In the present petition, appointment of the petitioners was on daily wages basis on availability of work, de-hors the constitutional ‘v"““' scheme and as such, the appointments of the petitioners came to an end when no work was available for them. 5. For the reasons above-stated and as per the dicta laid down by the Supreme Comt, the petitioner is not entitled for reappointment] Ieinstatement in the service. This peh'tion is accordingly dismissed. No otder as to costs. Inn-”4T Sd/- Satish K. Agnihoh'i ' Judge 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2006) 7 SOC 488 3 e (2006) 7 SCC 684 4 2006 AIR SWV 2497 5 2006 AIR SCW 5159