^y^iyw^ss^9syv!^^^^ ^ II'l THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYaPRADESHAT Au3ALP_UR... W.P. No.---jJi^A>---—°f 1997. lal-i PSTI'SQIiSR s. Sbrimat.l SUa Oubey widow or .Shr-i Lavakusb, "Dai", Huiiioipal - ^ Gorporation Ausbdhalaya, Durg. VERSDS aE-gPONDB'T-TS ;^1. "unicxpal Ctorporation, Ouig•&» through th®Cofflaissioner. i^?s. 2. The Ste-ce of Madhya Pradesh through the Secretary . Local 3el£ Sovernment, Madhya Pradesh, BHOPAL'?(M.P.). 3. The Mayor Municipa.l Corporation, Durg. WRIT PETITION UNBBR ARTICLB 226/227 O? THg CONSTIWTION O? INDIA rfKSI fSSS-' HJSH COURT QF JUOICATURECHHAmS&iRH: BILASPUR Singl®Bench: Honbie Shri Satlsh K, Agnihotri, J, ,2462 OF 1997 Petitioner Shrimati Sila Dubey Versus Municipal Corporation, Durg, throui the Commissioner & otiiers 'resent: Mr. AJay Shriyastava, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Shar'mila Shinghai, counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 3. A\r. V.V.S. Mur'thy, beputy Advocate Seneral with Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel lawyer for the respondent No. 3/State ffasssd on 8th day of February. 2007) Lecmed counsel qspearing for the petitioner submits 1+iat the petitioner was Oippointed as dciiy wages worker in the year 1980. Thereafter, by resoiution dated 10.5.87 (Annexure P/l-A), passed by tiie Standing Commttee of tiie r'espondent-Cor'poration, Dur9, the seryices of the petitioner was regularized on daily wages basis. Thereofter, regular pay sccle was granted to the petitioner yide order dated 28.2.1996, which was cancelled subsequently, by -the order dated 30.5.1996 (Annsxure P/5) ond the petitioner was granted daiiy wages as muster roli employee. By tiiis petition, the petitioner has prayed for c direction to quash the order dated 30.5.1996 (Annexure P/5) cnd tb regularize cppointment of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.5.87. f •/,^! f\? AAs. Sharmila Shinghai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 3 would submit that tha resolution dated 10.5.87 to regularize the service of the petitioner on the post of '&ai' could not be given effect to as 1+iere is no post of '&ai'. Order dated 28.2.1996 oppointing the petitioner on the post of Peon was given as no post of 'bai' was ayailable, with the condition to submit seryice book of earlier service, date of birth certificate, medical certificate and character certificate. Instead of date of birth certificate, an affiddvit to that effect was filed.' Despite repeated reminders, the petitioner has not submitted her date of birth certificate til date. The petitioner submitted a school (eaying certificate, which gave different date of bir-th, wherein the date of bir-th was mentioned as 17.10.39 of Shiv bulari, Daughter of Shri Sanesh Prasad. In the nffidcvit of tiie petitioner, the petitioner had given the date of blrth as 8.7.1943. Thus, the petitioner submitted contrary dates of birth. Accordin9ly, the order of appointmentdated 28.2.1996 (Annexure P/l) was cancelled vide order dated 30.5.1996. Learned counse! appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 3 wouid further contend that the oppointment of •riie petitioner was on daily wa9es basis, not in accordance with iaw. Be that as it may, onperusal of tiie pteadings cmd papers, it appears thot the oppointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the constitutional schemeof employment by inviting applications form a!i the eligible candidates. The petitionef had further faiied topoint out from cny document tho,t the petitioner's appointment was made after following due process of law in accor'donce with the constitutiona! scheme of empioyment. Thus, 1+ie petitioner has no right to the post. - F This Court, vide order dated 23 day of January, 2007, passed in Writ Petition (s) No. 1983 of 2005 (Ashish Kumar &as vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhcttisgarh) and others), reiying on decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Stat®of M.P. and others vs. Yogesh Chandra Manoj Shrivestova , held that Itie appointment de-hors the constitutional scheme of empioyment is not validated by subsequent regularization. In yiew of the above stated reasons, tiie appointment of the petitioner is not a vaiid oippointment as she hcs no right to the post. As o. result and in view of the abovementioned reasons, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _ __-._-_ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1. (2005) 8 SCC 67 2. (2006)25cc702 L /•/• <'fr