HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS (Petitioners) c ^; WritADpeal No. 159 of 2008 1. Smt. Champa Bai, W/o Shri Bhagwat Singh Thakur, aged about 47 years, R/o Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Baisakhin Bai, W/o Shri Shobha Ram, aged about 55 years, R/o Quarter of Animal Husbandry Farm, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Smt, Indribai, W/o Late Jagdish, aged about 44 years, R/o Government Quarter, Animal Husbandry Department, Pakaria, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Budhia Bai, W/o Shri Kunwar Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o Government Quarter, Animal Husbandry Department, Pakaria, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh - through the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Veterinary Services, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Writ Appeal under Section 2(11 ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court Appeal to Division Bench Act 2006 read with Rule 157 (10) (El of the Hiah Court of Chhattisaarh Rules 2005 RiSPONDENTS Present: Shri P. Diwakar, learned Senior counsel with Shri P.R. Patankar, learned counsel forthe appellants. 7? Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents. c. Judament (1st August, 2008) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2. The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 18.07.2008, passed inW.P.S. No.3781/2008. 3. The appellants had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: " In view of the facts and grounds as mentioned in foregoing paragraphs, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs: 10.1 That,the respondent authorities be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization w.e.f. 1988 i.e. when the other similariy situated persons were reguiarized. 10.2 That, after regularizing the petitioners w.e.f. 1988, their pay be accordingly fixed. 10.3 Cost of the petition be allowed. 10.4 Any other relief, including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Hon'ble Court." 4. The appellants, thus, in substance were seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents for their regularization with effect from 1988 i.e. when the other similarly situated persons were regularised. 5. Shri P. Diwakar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, realising that though the appellants had claimedtheir regularization with effect from 1988 on the ground that the similarly situated persons were regularised with effect from 1988, but no such order or document was filed along with the writ petition to demonstrate/establish that any other similarly situated person was ever regularised with effect from 1988; confined the appellants'challenge in this appeal to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in para 6 of the impugned order. Learned counse! further submitted that the observations made by the iearned Single Judge in the impugned order to the effect that the appellants' appointment itselfwas iltegal and improper may lead to their removal from service. 6. The observations made by the learned Singie Judge in para 6 of the impugned order reads as follows : "!t is no longer res integra that the persons appointed on daily wages basis, dehors the constitutional scheme of employment, have no right to the post or to reinstatement or continuation in service. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioners was not legal and valid as it was in violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners cannot claim regularization as a matter of right as their appointmentswere illegal and improper {See State of Kamataka & others Vs. Uma Devi & others1}. The State Government by circular dated 22-11-1988 (Annexure P/2), decided to grant regular pay scale, that, by itself, does nbt confer any right on the petitioners, as their appointments were not regular and proper." j^-^—.^-:^ .•.-^'..•^.^^.wh^wssssw 4 ?:^ 7. it is apparent from the above quoted reliefs sought by the appellants in the writ petition that the legality/ validity of the appellants' appointment as daily-wager was not the subject matter of the writ petition. As such, the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the above quoted para 6 of the impugned order to theeffect that the appellants' appointment itself was illegaland improper were quite unnecessary. 8. We, therefore, while affirming the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants' writ petition, set aside the observations made by the iearned Single Judge in the above quoted para 6 of the impugned order to the effect that the appellants' appointment was illegal and improper. 9. With the above order, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu ^