IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH : RILASPUR Writ Petiu‘on No. 857 of 2003 Peiitioner Farooque Mohd. Ansari, s/o 3111i Din Mohd. Ansan', aged about 32 years, R/ o Namnakala, Ambikapur, Distn'ct Surguja (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through — Secmtaly, General Admmistmtion Department, D.K. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Secmtaxy, Revenue Department, D. K. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector, Surguja (CG), Ambikapur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 6n 227 OF ‘I‘HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Sbri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri J. S. BaraJ'k , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Sum'ta Jain, Advocate tor the respondents] State. O R D E R (Passed on this 4th Day of September, 2008)’ 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heald finally. 2. The petitioner was appointed on connect basis by Older dated 5.10.2000 (Annexuie P/Q) for the period from 28.2.2000 to 31.5.2001 for the purpose of census. After completion of the conuact pexiod the service of the petitioner came to an end. Subsequently, by order dated 7. 1.2003 (Annexure P] 9) the petitioner was again appointed on contract basis, which came to an end on 31. 1.2003. By this petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents No. l and 2 to appoint the petitioner. It is further stated that some posts were available at the time of nling ofthe writ petition. é§ 1,— ~ Be that as it may, since the appointment was on contract basis for a ked tcrm, the petitioner has no right to cominue in sewice. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a casual worker and engaged by the Additional Collector for work of census for the particular period. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled to continuation in his engagement. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and othersl observed in para 47 as under: “47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in natuie. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectauon for being conmmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise While engaging these‘persons either to continue them Where they are or to make them permanent. ’l‘he State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. lt is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.” 5. The nature of appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with Rules and as such the petitioner does not acquire any right to the post. It is well settled principle of law ‘ 2006 (4) scc 1 *3/ by a catena of decisions that the employee appointed de-hors the consu‘tuu‘onal schamc of employment and not in accordance with law, has no right to continuation, reinstatement or regularization in service. This is also not a case where the petitioner has established that he was legally appointed. It is clearly established that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. 6. Applying the well settled principles of law, as stated above, to the facts of the present case, wherein the petitioner wwl appointed on contract basis for a particular period and his sexvices come to an end in accordance with the contractual term, he has no right to the post. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, M(W)P No, 748/ 2003 stands dismissed. Sd/- Sau'sh K. Aguihou'i Judge Thalmr