BEFORE THE M.P.STA% mmsmam'iva Talmmm ’ Emmi AT wwa §M.P.)_ 1f Lamw PraSa& Sahu $en 0f Shri Ganesh Raxa Sahu, Resident cf Village Bhata'Pest Faguran Tahsil saakti,’ Bilasgur My: 2;": ’TrilOchan Prasad Rathod sari 0f ShriHKhamman Prasad Rathod, ?0 s't Saragaon Bistric't Janj$1r Chamya',‘ 38': Babulél Chandra son of Shri Shiv Prasad Chandra a/o ami Pest Paraswani, Uiaha Dabhara District Jana’gr- M.P.% 4. Balram Chandra scncf Shri Jan'akram Chandra Féesident 0f Sakhada Viaha Dabhara Distri c‘t Bikaspur ELF? 5? $hyam Kmar Sahu $11 Of ghri Ghana Ram $ahu, Reai dent o£ Vill age Jangahan POS't Muk'bakala ( Malkharauda) Tahsil Malkharauda ) Di atrict Bil aspur WP.“ Versus 1?- Sthate of MvFé‘ ' Thrcugh Secretary, School Education Department Vallabh Bhawall Bmgml M§Pn2 Kw. APPLICANTS“ 2. Jain‘b Directar, Publi c Instruction ,Eéucation Divi sion,‘ Bilaspur (mm)? 3,; DEPU‘H DmEcioR, Education Public Instructicn Eaucau'on Dep armen‘t, Edacatian Dis 'tri ct; Ej{ B11 aS?ur (I’loPc) , ..... M HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHI-IATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. - W. P. [SI No. 2630 of 2005 ‘ Petiu'oners : Laxman Prasad Sahu at, others if 1 Respondents Versus : State of M. P. (now C.G.) 8a othars k Ff W Shn' Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Sunita Jain, Panel lawyer for the respondents. 0 R D E R (Passed on this 5th day of January, 2007 i 1. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers on ”Y _ ‘i ad hoe basis in the year 1981- 1982 and thereafter their services were terminated. The petitioners by this petition seek a direction to the i 'i respondents _ for consideration of their cases in View of the order A ( passed in T. A. No. 496/98 and 624/97 Le. minstatement/ L, reappointment of the petitioners in service. . In view of the settled position of law as enunciated by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretaty, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Unwdevi‘ which was followed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court, Viz. Accounts omcer (AM A.P.SRTC and others vs. P. Chandra Sekhara Ran and othersz, Surinder Prasad Tiwari vs. U.P. RaJya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others", Nagar Mahapalika (now Municipal Corpn.) us. State of UZP. and others" and ILP. State Road Transport Corporanon vs. Man 8ingh5, daily rated, temporary or ad hoc appointees have no right to the post as their appointment was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of t0 an Thakur the appointment and not in accondance with any Ru1€s, Regulations, as framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the pmsent petition, appointment of the petitioner was on ad hoe basis de-hors the constitutional scheme and as such, the appointment came to an end atter the ad hoe period is over. For the reasons above-stated and as per the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court: the petitioners ale not entitled for reappointment] reinstatement in the service. This petition is accordingly dismiesed, No order as to costs. O3U1‘#N-- Sd]- Satish K. Agniimtri 'gnage , . (2006) 4 SCC 1 (2006) 7 SCC 483 (2006) 7 SCC 684 2006 NR SCVV 2497 2006 AIR SCW 5159