-...Y ^ rf- \ IN THE HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARM AT:BILASPUR PETITIONER: ^- ^^ <y <€^ ^ W.P.No.gc^e OF 2004 Shobha Ram Yadav, aged 34 years, son of Shri Anoop Ram Yadav, resident of near Balmukund School Yadav mohalla Talapara, Bilaspur, tehsil and district Bilaspur. VERSUS RESPONDENTS:fiy State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Forest department, Raipur. (2) Divisional Eorest Officer, Bilaspur Forest Division, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (3) Officer-In-Charge, Narangi Area, Survey and Demarcation Unit, Bilaspur, Forest Division Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^^< i^^'.^ <y^;..- WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WMT E\ THE NATLIRE OF GERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROBffiBITION AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRHyWRTTS, ORDER/ORDERS, DIRECTION/ DmECTIONS .'• t 'i HI6H COURT OF JUI>ICATURECHHATnS6ARH: BILASPUR Singte Bcnch: Hon'bte Shri Satlsh K. Agnlhotri. J. f-' Batftu ;>. Petitioner Respondents W. P. No. 3048 of 2004 Shobha Ram Yadm Versus The State of Chhatt'isgarh & o-thers Shri Somnd-th Vernw, counsel for -rfie petitiener. Siri Arujpfm Dubey.Pwiel lawyer for the respondents/Sl'ate. ORDER (Passed on 2ndday of January, 2007) Adniittedly, the petitioner vws appointed in the year 1983 on daily wnges basis by the reqiondent-Forest Dqiartment at the Forest Division, Bilaspur. Tlie petitioner has filed this petition seeking regularizatjon of the petitioner on -the basis of the circulars dated 25.9.1998 (Annexure P/3) and 10.12.1999 (Annexure P/4). The said circulars provide for regutarization of muster-rolt employees, tAo were cppointed before 31.12A8. The «id circulars (executive instructions) do not confer any right on the petitioner to seek regularization on the post, trfierein the petitioner was workin9 on daily woges basis. It is wetl settled principle of law •that •the daily wagers, temponiry or ad hoc employees have no right to -the post seekin9 regutarization and grant of re9ul<xr pay scate, if •their oppointments were de-hors •the constitutional scheme or the rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of •riie Consti-hjtion pf IndioL The petitioner hos no ri9ht to contmue/regularize or remsftt'te on th^ po^t in view of catena of decisions laid down by the Supreme Court. The writ petition is accordingtytlismis^l. No order as to costs. SA'- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge