Q^^ IN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.NO. l?crif QF 2003 /" PETITIONER tdris Ali, S/o. Ghafoor Ali, aged about 50 years, R/o. Jainagar, P/S and Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja(C.G.)' Versus RESPONDENTS -^^€^--" ».^^''v" 1) D.G.M., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Marketing Division, Westem Region, 254-C, Dr.Amiie Besant Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai (M.S.). 2) S.G.M., Indian Oil Coiporation Ltd. Indian Oil Bhawan, 16 Jail Road, AreaHills, Bhopal (M.P.) 3) Divisional Manager Indian OU Corporation Ltd. Raipur Division, V.I.P. Road, Raipur (C.G.). 4) Depot Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bishrampur, Distiict Surguja (C.G-). WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 228/227 OI^ THE ..s'ts'~ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE APPROPRIAT WMT/WMTS, DIRECTION/DffiECTIONS AND/OR ORDER/ORDERS M J'AliTTr'TILJLttS-QE-THE-nT'TTTTrk^Tn'n- IB— ^. HI^iCOURT OF CHHATriSGARH^AT BILASPUR Writ Petltlon Ho. 1501 of 3003 Petitioner Idris Ali Vei^us Respoiidents D. G.'M. indian Oil Corporation Ltd. aad ofhers SB: Honlle Mr. Justice Satish K. I, J None for fhe petitiouer. None for tbe respondents. The i,J, ORDER ( 23'dAugust, 2006) oirier of the C^iirt is passed by Satish K. 1. tn the present petition, fhe petitioner was employed as Khalasi on temporaiy basis. According to the petitioner, he continued to work for about 10 years in the Rispondeat/Oil Corpoiation. The petitioner has filed this petition for a writ of inandamzis to the i^spondents to take back the petitioner in service as a pemiaaent einployee. 2. Bc that as it roay, on penisal of the papers, it appears that the appointtnent ofthc petitioner was on teinporary basis, not against any regular vacancy aud not in accordance with the constitutional scheine or law and as siich the petitioner has no rigbt to reinstatenient on the post. 3. In view of the decision of a constitutional Bench of Honlile the Supreme Court iii the case others Vs. XJmadevI (3) and y, State of Karnataika and { (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cages 1), flie petitioDer has no right for n'appomtment/reinstatemRnt. A writ of mandamus, as prayed for by him, cannot be issued m tlie facts oftbe case. 4. In view of the forcgoing, the petition is dismissed. No onler as to costs. ' Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge &;-J:-